That the current confrontation in Wisconsin between Republican Governor Scott Walker, the Republican controlled Wisconsin State Legislature, and unionized government workers is now being repeated in a number of other states is a clear indication that it amounts to an organized and concerted effort to break, first the public employee unions, and then those in the private sector. (BTW - This contention is even further supported by Governor Walker's being "punked" in a phone call he believed was coming from Republican sugar daddy, David Koch, wherein Walker iterates with apparent glee how a number of the other Republican governors are dutifully following his lead.)
Conservatives have, almost monolithically, always hated and opposed unions of any sort. Most consider them to be the scourge of the earth. That sentiment has long been voiced here at BC.
As I've noted here and elsewhere, I DO believe that unions have in some instances become too powerful and have abused that power becoming in the process as corrupt as the industries in which their consituents toiled. As with all such things, though, the few bad apples have had the effect of poisoning the entire barrel - at least as regards appearances.
That being said, should this effort succeed, which it well may, the unions' ability to effectively represent their membership will wane much further than it already has over the past few decades. The conservative response, should that scenario come to pass, would likely be "Hallelujah!"
The loss of effective unions will be a huge blow to workers at almost all levels - whether they are unionized or not. Unions represent the only large, organized voice coming from the left and in support of the working class that have any concerted political or economic power. If unions fail, let the right wingnut oppression begin. This IS class warfare.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Victor Lana
I'll never forget reading Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and, while I know it's a different world, I still see the need for unions to protect workers.
2 - Baritone
Anyone who believes that the corporate sector would, in the absence of unions, act responsibly regarding their employee's working conditions, pay and benefits is smoking some heavy stuff. Corporate concerns begin and end with the bottom line. In order to maintain multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses for the upper echelon of management and to keep the share holders smiling, the workers will be the first to take the hits. It wouldn't be too long before the workplace would once again be a "jungle."
B
3 - Glenn Contrarian
What I want to know is, when all the conservatives want SMALL government to stay out of peoples' lives, why is it that they want to OUTLAW the ability of people to voluntarily join together to negotiate for something they want?
If two or twenty or twenty thousand people agree that they want to negotiate for something they want, is it not a matter of freedom of speech that they be allowed to do so?
4 - Baritone
One would think so, Glenn.
B
5 - Clavos
Baritone,
You say that what Walker is doing "amounts to an organized and concerted effort to break, first the public employee unions, and then those in the private sector."
Yet you really provide no solid evidence that this is so, other than some rather broad (and unsubstantiated) invective about evil Republicans (isn't that a tautology?) and conservatives' supposed "class warfare."
How you can come to the conclusion that Walker's ultimate goal is to break unions in the private sector is incomprehensible, if for no other reason than that he has neither the authority nor the power to do so, and has clearly stated his goal is simply to bring Wisconsin's budget back under control. Ah, but I forget that you know somehow that he is lying on this point -- again with no evidence presented by you.
You conclude by saying "What they are holding out against is losing their right to collective bargaining on issues other than cost of living pay increases which is all Walker will allow." While it's true that Walker wants to restrict the government employees' unions license (not "right") to collective bargaining, his aim is not without precedent from no less than the most prominent Democrat (and defender of the worker) of the twentieth century: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was categorically opposed to collective bargaining to the point of striking by federal workers. In a letter to Luther C. Steward, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, Mr.Roosevelt noted,
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government." (emphasis added)
Whereas workers in the private sector have no means by which to bring pressure to bear on their employers to treat them humanely, government workers, who number in the tens of millions nationwide, have the power of the vote to use against their employer, the government.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Again, Clavos, with the exceptions of the military and the various security services (CIA, NSA, etc), is it not a matter of freedom of speech that people should be allowed to band together to negotiate for something they want?
And how is it that conservatives - who say they want 'small government' to stay out of peoples' lives - would stand so vociferously against such attempts at negotiation?
7 - Clavos
Again, Clavos, with the exceptions of the military and the various security services (CIA, NSA, etc), is it not a matter of freedom of speech that people should be allowed to band together to negotiate for something they want?
Obviously, from my #5, no, not with the license (it's not a "right") to strike, not in the case of government employees. "Band together," yes. Strike, no.
8 - kurt brigliadora
I would have to say that everyone needs to give a little at the bargaining table, unlike the "pirates" The somali radicals want it all. They have no "reason and fairness" Where is our leadership?
9 - Clavos
I think it's interesting just how contemptuous of the law "good, honest, law-abiding" Democrats can be when it suits them. In Wisconsin, we're seeing Democrat teachers abandoning and hurting their students by not showing up for work, Democrat doctors violating their ethics writing phony excuses for those teachers, and to top it off, Democrat legislators violating their oath of office by fleeing out of state and holing up in a motel to illegally thwart the business of the Wisconsin legislature.
Glenn, let's not hear any more about how great Dems are compared to the GOP; as I've said repeatedly in the past, they're all clowns and crooks.
10 - Baritone
Gov. Walker pretty much put his foot in his mouth during the "punked" phone call in which he made it clear that he is working in concert with other Rep governors, and that the overarching goal is the final defeat of public sector unions. The fiscal situation simply provides an opportunity to make this move now.
Perhaps my failure in the article was in not being more specific regarding who is doing what. There are in fact efforts to cripple private sector unions in various legislatures across the country primarily with "right to work" legislation including here in Indiana. While here, that particular bill was shelved - at least partly at the behest of Gov. Daniels, that is likely no more than a temporary delay.
I believe the fact that public employees have obtained collective bargaining "licenses" (if you prefer) over the past several years makes the argument against them, if not moot, certainly one that has been bandied about by various legislative bodies with the decisions generally going in favor of the workers.
I don't believe that the welfare of the public at large is placed in any more significant jeapordy by,say a trash collector's strike than that of the workers in a large manufacturing plant in a community where the economy is largely dependent upon it. Both can create hardship, but neither would significantly affect national security nor the public welfare. As yet, it should be pointed out, there have been no strikes in Wisconsin nor anywhere else by public employees during this current confrontation that I'm aware of.
There is, frankly, no reason to believe that without some type of organized representation, public workers would fare any better at the hands of a legislating body or governor than their private sector compatriots would from corporations. It's neither logical, nor fair to expect millions of public sector workers to be denied the ability to organize in some manner to promote better pay, better working standards, etc. for themselves simply because their "boss" is us. And, keep in mind, public sector workers are citizens who pay taxes as well. Leaving their fate to the whims of the voter is hardly an effective way to protect or represent their interests.
I made no reference to "evil Republicans." However, it's no great revelation that by and large, Republicans are hardly union sympathizers. It is also clear that with the power swing in the House and many statehouses and state legislators, the agenda has also shifted to the right regarding a # of issues beyond public worker unions including much of the right wing social agenda regarding abortion rights, same sex marriage, etc. In effect, the union issue is acting to a degree as a smoke screen. The Indiana House just passed a bill to enact a constitutional ammendment against same sex marriage. The Senate will pass it without a hitch and Gov. Daniels will likely sign it. It will then be up to the voters in Indiana. That's almost a no brainer here in the bible belt.
11 - Baritone
Clav: RE your #9: Are we to believe that teachers are expected to be totally selfless, that they should abandon all self interest to "honor" their duty to their students? Many of those same students have come out in support of them by joining in the protest. It could be said that the kids are getting a good lesson in civics.
Both the Wisconsin and Indiana legislators who have fled their respective states claim, and I believe rightl so, that they are properly representing their constituents by their actions. When the opposition makes it clear that there will be no discussion, no debate; that it's an all or nothing affair, what other options are there?
Republican Senators in Congress effectively did the same thing by taking advantage of the arcane Senate rules in blocking virtually everything having Democratic support over the previous two years.
12 - Andy Marsh
I believe that if govt workers want to collectively bargain then they should do it with the people that pay their salaries. Anything they want in the way of pay raises or benefit increases should be put on a ballot and voted on by the people that pay taxes.
It just doesn't seem fair that they're able to line the pockets of politicians and then go to those same politicians and demand anything. Why wouldn't the pols give them what they wanted if they know it's just gonna help line their pockets more?
And as to the question of whether or not corporations will pay without unions..they seem to in the 22 right to work states!
I asked this question on another thread and all the union lovers ignored it, so I'll try it again. Can someone explain to me why the cost of living is so much higher in union states than it is in non-union states?
13 - Boeke
Workers have the right to unionize, and exercise their union power, by the same logic that investors may incorporate and exercise their joint power. There is power in numbers and the lone individual ie easily taken advantage of.
In fact, corporations have extraordinary privileges not extended to unions, such as liability protection, direct taxpayer subsidies (in fact, Scott Walkers legislation includes direct public subsidies to corporations), the promise of bailouts, etc.
To create parity between employee unions and the corporations they work for would require a whole raft of new privileges for unions.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Glenn, let's not hear any more about how great Dems are compared to the GOP; as I've said repeatedly in the past, they're all clowns and crooks.
That is what is known as a "false equivalency". When the Republicans start acting with common sense rather than buying into such idiotic claptrap like birtherism (51% of GOP believe (or are undecided about) the lie), that global warming is a grand conspiratorial lie despite what the VAST majority of scientists say, that unregulated-guns-everywhere-all-the-time is the way to have a peaceful society, that giving billions in government subsidies to Big Oil EVERY year is more important than subsidizing clean and renewable energy...
...when the GOP starts working with FACTS rather than fear, then we can hold them in equal light with the Dems.
15 - Clavos
Are we to believe that teachers are expected to be totally selfless, that they should abandon all self interest to "honor" their duty to their students?
As long as they continue to piously proclaim their dedication and love for the job and the students, as most of them do, loudly and publicly, yes.
Both the Wisconsin and Indiana legislators who have fled their respective states claim, and I believe rightly so, that they are properly representing their constituents by their actions...
Many (if not most) of their constituents disagree with you.
Recent studies have shown that government workers' compensation packages (pay plus benefits) are as much as 30% higher than their private sector counterparts, and governments (especially state governments, Wisconsin included) are going broke -- it's time to rein in the public unions' power to be more in line with Roosevelt's concept of the role of public unions (Comment #5). Particularly in the case of the teachers' unions (primarily the NEA and AFT), whose iron-clad work rules result in absurdities like $100,000 a year teachers who have been found to be unfit for the classroom sitting around all day or assigned to menial make-work tasks because they can't be fired.
Government unions have become so strong and grown so fast in recent years that government union workers now outnumber private sector union workers, which has resulted in, as the WSJ notes, the problem that ...as union membership has grown in government, so has union clout in pushing politicians (especially but not solely Democrats) for higher wages and benefits. This is why labor chiefs Andy Stern (SEIU) and Rich Trumka (AFL-CIO) could order Democrats to exempt unions from ObamaCare's tax increase on high-cost health insurance plans. To the extent Democrats have become the party of government, they have become ever more beholden to public unions.
And it's our (the taxpayers') money.
16 - Clavos
And what do we get for our money? Poorly educated kids who fare very badly against other countries' students. In the recently administered Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests, American students ranked in the low to mid twenties (out of a field of 65 nations). Pretty crappy results, but not surprising in a nation where demonstrably inept teachers cannot be fired. A nation where, alone among developed countries, learning a second language is NOT a requirement. A nation where college students have to be taught basic reading and writing skills in college, after they are admitted and arrive on campus.
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Ah, and America's low standing worldwide is ALL because of the unions, huh? It has nothing to do with the lingering effects of the ongoing War on Drugs that has torn the black community apart (remember the 100-1 ratio, where crack users (mostly black) were by law punished 100 times more harshly than (mostly white) chemically-identical-cocaine users?).
And it has nothing to do with the Religious Right's war on science, specifically against evolution?
And it has nothing to do with No Child Left Behind, where already-poorly-funded schools who didn't meet the standard found their funding cut even further?
And it has nothing to do with cutting teachers' pay to the point that 25% of all teachers in TEXAS (that gleaming capital of conservatism) have second jobs so they can support their families? So much for time to grade their students' homework....
And you yourself claimed that the statistical FACT that blue states generally have a better level of education than red states has nothing whatsoever with how they are governed - which includes the laws and regulations under which their school systems functions.
But if the blue states have the wrong idea, that it's liberal ideology that's ruining our kids' education, and that conservative ideals lead to better eduction, then one must ask why it is that red states generally do more POORLY on education?
I know, I know, you'll say that that's just a logical fallacy, that we should ignore the RESULTS because DOGMA is all that really matters.
Yes, Clavos, it's ALL the unions' fault! Time to outlaw the unions, just like Germany did in 1933....
18 - Glenn Contrarian
And Clavos -
Government unions have become so strong and grown so fast in recent years that government union workers now outnumber private sector union workers
Um, no. It's not that the government unions have grown, but that the private unions have SHRUNK to the point that they're less than a third as numerous as they once were.
19 - Baronius
Clavos is right that Baritone doesn't even attempt to substantiate his claim that private-sector unions are the ultimate target.
20 - Andy Marsh
Okay, keep ignoring my question and I'll just keep asking it...
Why is the cost of living so much higher in union states than it is in right to work states?
21 - Clavos
Um, no. It's not that the government unions have grown, but that the private unions have SHRUNK...
Actually it's both, but you won't agree because I'm attacking your virtuous US government unions...
22 - Cannonshop
#20 Andy, can you provide evidence of this statement? (It isn't that I don't believe it, I do-but people may be viewing your question as a "loaded" question based on evidence they are unaware of and, therefore, skeptical of.)
23 - Andy Marsh
Cannonshop - I'm sure I could if I felt like it, but I base my statement from my life experiences. I was born and raised in a union state and my folks still live in Jersey. I've lived in CA, MS, NJ, SC, NY and VA and what I know to be a fact is that I can afford a house in SC, MS or VA and not in CA, NJ or NY. And it's not just the price of the house that would stop me in those union states, but the taxes as well.
24 - Doug Hunter
#23 Andy, shhh. That's our little secret, a few are in on it and that's why net migration is from blue to red states. Government red tape makes things expensive, unions make things expensive, taxes make it all more difficult to afford which is why blue states cost of living is higher. I don't mind em moving to escape, just wonder why they continue to vote liberal democratic when they get here. Do they want to turn this place into what they were escaping from?
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Andy -
Ah, so you - and Cannonshop - are suggesting that it's more expensive to live in union states than in non-union states...which tend to be blue vs. red states, right?
Right.
And you're both RIGHT! It IS more expensive to live in blue states! But neither of you are looking at the whole story...and I think both of you would find some very interesting statistics in this article I wrote almost two years ago wherein I provided proof that:
- red states generally have populations with less health insurance, and blue states have more health insurance.
- people living in blue states generally have a longer life expectancy.
- blue states have a generally higher education level.
- blue states have a generally higher median income level.
- blue states have a generally LOWER crime rate (so much for the guns-for-everybody-makes-a-peaceful-society argument). This is despite the fact that blue states have a generally higher rate of drug use than red states.
- the states with the highest murder rate were ALL southern red states...and red states had the highest overall violent crime rate.
- states without the death penalty (most of which are blue) have a lower murder rate.
- family-values-supporting red states have a generally higher divorce rate than blue states.
- and I just now found this little quote: As of 2009, the three states with the lowest ratio of imprisoned to civilian population are Maine (150 per 100,000), Minnesota (189 per 100,000), and New Hampshire (206 per 100,000). The three states with the highest ratio are Louisiana (881 per 100,000), Mississippi (702 per 100,000) and Oklahoma (657 per 100,000). Notice a little red/blue state divergence there? Yes, there is! On the same page, btw, the very first graph shows how the American prison population began skyrocketing beginning in the Reagan administration...to the point that we now have the highest incarceration rate in the world. And YES, you can thank the red states with their MUCH-higher crime and murder rates for this particularly shameful fact!
- and I just found this list of states by percent living in poverty...and AGAIN you will find the highest percentages in red states, and the lowest percentages in blue states!
...and this is ALL despite the fact that red states generally receive MORE in federal tax dollars than their people pay out, and blue states generally receive LESS in federal tax dollars than their people pay out!
In the article you find references to all the hard-and-fast numbers...so what does this mean?
People living in blue states have a higher cost of living, yes...and we ALSO generally have:
- healthier, longer-living people with higher education levels and higher wages;
- fewer people living in poverty;
- lower crime rates;
- lower murder and violent crime rates; and
- lower divorce rates...
...even though we're effectively subsidizing the red states who don't pay out as much federal taxes as they pay in!
But since all this is merely factual and makes clear the fact that conservative political theory and values are NOT as good for the American people as your politicians would have us think, I expect you both to scoff at and scornfully reject the very idea that liberal politics might actually result in a better chance for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!