Fiscal liberals across America are cheering the public union protests taking place in Wisconsin – many of them foolishly attempting to link them to the mass protests that took place earlier this year in Cairo.
Apparently it’s every bit as heroic to rally for taxpayer-funded benefit packages as it is to rally for basic human rights.
Such is the “progressive” heart for protests … unless of course it’s those “racist teabaggers” holding the signs.
First of all, props to these protesters for exercising their freedom of speech. They have a right to be heard in the political process – although it’s pretty pathetic that hundreds of these “for the children” types have abandoned their classrooms for days to participate in the protests.
“I wish I could walk away from my job and expect to get paid,” one parent told a local FOX crew in Milwaukee.
Exactly …
Wisconsin is currently facing a $3.6 billion budget shortfall, which newly-elected Republican Gov. Scott Walker is hoping to address by cutting public sector salaries and requiring government employees to contribute more to their health care coverage and pension fund. Walker is also hoping to eliminate collective bargaining for public employees while making any future pay increases (above the consumer price index, anyway) contingent on voter approval.
Sounds reasonable to us … particularly in a state where the average public school teacher make $54,000 a year.
Of course the reaction from the left has been a week-long hissy fit – one that has been warmly embraced by the national mainstream media. Democratic Senators in the Badger State have even fled to neighboring Illinois so that the Senate would not have a quorum to vote on Walker’s proposals.
Democracy at work, right?
A liberal writer recently whined that Walker wasn’t just trying to cut salaries, he was trying to “weaken public employee unions so that they have fewer resources to support Democrats against Republicans in the 2012 election and beyond.”
Our reply: What’s wrong with that?
Labor unions are a cancer on this country – and especially on government. They need to be eradicated, not appeased.
Fortunately, this cancer is in remission in the private sector, which has seen union membership dwindle to 7.2 percent of the workforce (down from its peak of 33.9 percent in the 1940s).
Unfortunately, public sector union membership currently stands at 36.8 percent – up from 9.8 percent in the 1940s.
Quick … tell us which sector is better and more efficiently managing its finances?
Through the automotive bailout and tens of billions of dollars tucked away in the “stimulus,” unions have reaped the rewards of recessionary deficit spending – while on the other hand their exceedingly generous salaries and benefits are fueling unsustainable spending at all levels of government.
Look, times are tough in Wisconsin – and throughout America. In fact, the rest of us have been dealing with it for the last three years. Frankly, it’s past time that public employees who have been living high on the hog through the recession quit skipping work to bitch about finally, at long last, being asked to shoulder their fair share of the cost.
Scott Walker is right to trim these salaries and benefits – and to begin the long and arduous process of cutting this cancer out of his state government.
We can only hope that more governors are willing to follow his courageous lead.
***
By dirtbogger February 22, 2011 at 9:14 am
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/947947/-The-Koch-Brothers-End-Game-in-Wisconsin
By OhNoNotAgain February 22, 2011 at 11:02 am
He’s not really trying to balance the budget. His first priority is busting the union.
Even if he gets everything he wants in regards to the union, it won’t pay for all the things he has promised.
And after all the horrors we have seen from Wall Street in the past three years, you want to ask who’s better at finances?
They both suck at it, in different ways.
I agree that most unions these days are out of line in what they want to bargain for.
But I am certain that many who want to bust unions want to do so so that they can return to the way things were a LONG time ago. Sweatshops. Child labor. No minimum wage.
By athos February 22, 2011 at 11:12 am
The “budget crisis” in Wisconsin was caused by Governor Walker’s tax cuts. Even then, the state is still running a surplus over the next two years. And the unions have agreed to all the financial demands the governor has made. So really, at its core, this is a case of union-busting, pure and simple. Don’t say it’s about anything else, because it’s not.
Now I’m no fan of unions–having managed a union shop in the past–and I believe that the overall decline of unions in this country is due to beds the unions have made for themselves. But I do believe that if people want to unionize they have that right, and that Governor Walker has no right to unilaterally take that right away–especially when they’ve already met his demands.
By Unions....what to do, what to do... February 22, 2011 at 11:53 am
I agree that people should have a right to Unionize…but the fact is that the freedom to Unionize should also come with the same freedom of both business owners and government agencies to use discretion in who they hire and fire. As it is now in some areas of the country the Wagner act prohibits that kind of discrimination.
Employers do it every day regardless, for example you need specific work experience or a degree in an area to land certain types of jobs. It is also known as “discrimination”.
Where it gets messy of course is when stupid business owners use race or something similar to decide not to hire people. However as a basic staple of property rights any business owner should be allowed to be that stupid. Otherwise government is infriging on the basic property rights of the owner in allowing him to hire or fire who he wants.(although I don’t beleive government should be allowed this discretion as they are using many different people’s tax dollars to employ people)
That right of freedom should naturally extend to employers. Yes, you have the right to Unionize. In that same spirit, yes, I(as an employer) have the right to say I don’t want any union workers in my company so I will let you go.
It’s all about freedom. I don’t see anyone looking out for the taxpayer when these unions collect their debts from politicians that won on their voting base.(nice fat tax payer subsidized pensions for example) The whole thing is very corrupt.
A policy of not allowing union workers to accept employment at a government agency is still a freedom for both parties. The employee can either accept the terms or go find another job where he/she can be a member of a union(if it’s that important to them) and the employer gets to decide what is best for his company.
Either way the employee doesn’t have to take a job if he/she doesn’t like the rules and the employee gets to hire people who he thinks will help his company the best. That is freedom.
By 1patriot February 22, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Liberals (including those who visit this site) don’t seem to get it. This country is going down the tubes economically unless government at all levels acts responsibly to correct the spending madness of the past and present. I applaud people such as the Governor’s of Wisconsin and New Jersey, who are trying to make real change (for the good, not that bullshit Obama preaches, which is just more spread the wealth socialism). I thought Nikki was going to be one of those tough as nails governors, but thus far she has disappointed me. Thank god for right to work laws !
By stateemployee February 22, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Articles and bloggers like this that love to bash public employee unions, that really is the trendy Republican thing, I wonder why they don’t be more specific that they really are bashing policeman and firefighters. Teachers get all the highlight, because they are easy to pick on, but let’s see how badly you think of the others’ unions when your house is on fire or you need a cop. South Carolina doesn’t have teachers unions, why are we not leading the nation in education if unoins are the root of all evil and just lead to laziness and mediocrity in its workers.
By James February 22, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Unions have done far more good for this country than damage. If it were not for unions we would live in a hell hole with 6 year old children working in cotton mills, 12 and 13 year old children working second and third shift after school, women working in sweat shops as virtual slaves, people living in poverty in mill houses, buying their food from a company stores, and being educated in mill schools that only educated children to work in mills.
Unions are the reason this country has a large educated middle class; and a large educated middle class is necessary for democracy to survive. Only an uneducated idiot would believe unions have been a cancer on this nation.
Regarding closed vrs open shop. That is and should be a matter of contract. If an employer wants to enter into a contract with a union agreeing to hire only union members he should be allowed to do so. If an employer does not wish to enter into a contract limiting his employees to union members he should not have to do so; and that is currently the way it is. There is no law requiring an employer to enter into closed shop contract.
Over the years, especially in states like SC; employers have successfully engaged in anti-union misinformation campaigns. In the end, a union is nothing more than a group of people banding together to sell a product, their labor. Employers are not obligated to sign a contract to exclusively buy labor from a union. They can refuse to enter a contract with the union, and unions can refuse to enter contracts with employers.
It is true that employers cannot fire someone just because they join a union; and I personally do not see why that is unfair.
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence unionization hurts an industry. In fact, in the era of globalization, the most heavily unionized American industries, automobile and steel, have fared far better than the largely un-unionized textile industry.
By Tom Stickler February 22, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Paul Krugman recently wrote “…what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.”
“But Mr. Walker isn’t interested in making a deal. Partly that’s because he doesn’t want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers’ ability to bargain.”
Now, for those of you in Rio Linda, “oligarchy” is Greek for rule by the powerful few. If you think that union-busting is a good idea, you are either one of the powerful few, or you are a fool who has been suckered by the powerful few.
There is another Greek term that seems to fit our current political situation: “kleptocracy.” That’s government by thieves in English. Tax cuts for the rich get recycled back to the tax-cutters in the form of campaign contributions. The Koch brothers didn’t contribute $46,000 to Walker’s campaign because they thought he would be a good Governor. Walker has started to repay them by trashing anti-pollution rules and setting up no-bid sales of state-owned utilities.
Anyone making less than $150,000 a year that votes Republican needs to have their head examined.
By rob February 22, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Lots of union trolls posting today…
I know of a pediatrician who works in the Low Country and makes $38,000/year.
He works about 50 hours a week.
Those lazy ass union teachers in liberaland Wisconsin currently enjoy an average benefits/salary package of nearly $89 K/year…
And these teachers get 3+ months of vacation/year!!!
Maybe we should all join unions and get paid to go on strike!
By Voice of Reason February 22, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Sic, you are so far from getting it that I’m not sure there’s any hope for you.
1) Obviously — to those of us who use the head for something beyond a place to park a ball cap — what’s going on in Wisconsin is about union busting, nothing more. The WI budget shortfall is a result of the recessionary contraction in tax revenue. If austerity was truly a concern, Walker wouldn’t have approved a fairly sizable package of corporate welfare almost immediately upon taking office. This is purely a political ploy and it is repugnant to reason.
2) As to the efficacy of teacher’s unions, take a quick look of the overall education statistics in the country. Which states are at the bottom? Here’s a shocker — it’s the five southern states which exclude collective bargaining as a matter of law. Correlation does not imply causation and it’s more complicated than that, of course, but that’s still damnable.
2) The needs of the many outweigh the comfort of the few. The wealthy must be taxed. The war machine must be reined in. Then we can start talking about improving spending efficiency.
By theo February 22, 2011 at 11:14 pm
A recently released study evaluating Wisconsin 8th graders revealed that nearly 2/3rd’s lacked basic reading proficiency skills.
Gotta love those teacher unions!
Just think, maybe those kids were learning more at home last Friday with their parents whilst their truant teachers skipped school to “make” the protest…
By dirtbogger February 23, 2011 at 8:31 am
Coorperations, and government do not like power of the people plain and simple. I am not a member of a Union but they have their place. But I also believe that government employee’s should not be allowed a union. I also do not believe there should be so many government employees, Federal or State! If their were not a bullshit drug war the police force could be cut 9/10.
By political hack February 23, 2011 at 10:26 am
Many fail to grasp the difference between PUBLIC sector unions and PRIVATE sector unions. The private sector unions serve their purpose by allowing the collective bargaining and have done some good for private industry workers, albeit killing production by exporting it to communist dictators in the east who have no qualms about the peasants in their industrial machine. The public sector unions promote nothing but outright fraud. It is all about votes. Public employees work for the state, and should receive state benefits/pay accordingly as they do in this state. Why do they need some middleman to negotiate for wages that our elected government officials should set for them in their civic duty to the taxpayer who pays for these “services”? The endgame is that public sector unions and their public employees, who are supposed to serve the interest of the taxpayer, merely promote fiscally liberal politicians, i.e. The Democratic Party, because they will stick it to the taxpayers, and have always done so. These unions are a power base. Why do you think the private sector union has steadily declined over the past 50 years and the public sector unions have gained so many members? And, as ironic as it may be, the growth of these fraud based unions has coincided with the growth of socialism, inflation, and irresponsible debt. Just as a private union can destroy the production capacity of an industry, a public union can destroy a republic. But, because I look at the long run effects of these organizations, I must be an “uneducated idiot”. But, that is what happens when you get your education in a lenthead school.
By Good Ole Boy February 23, 2011 at 10:38 am
stateemployee, obviously you love public-sector unions because they benefit YOU at the expense of everyone else. Private-sector unions are *somewhat* kept in check by market forces, because if the union is too demanding and inflexible, it will kill the golden goose and put the company out of business. Usually that process is done slowly until the company is paying too many pensions, too many benefits, and can no longer produce a competitive product.
On the other hand, a public-sector union is not restrained by market forces. The government will never go out of business — it will just raise taxes to pay the bloated salaries and pensions. Public-sector unions should be abolished or at least neutered. As the headline to this blog aptly states, they are cancers.
As to police and firemen, I admire them for doing a tough job, but they are generally overpaid. Too many can retire too early, with cushy benefits and pensions, etc. It is nearly impossible to get a job being a fireman. Why? Because they pay and benefits are disproportionally higher than they should be.
By James February 23, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Once again the Republican propaganda (lie) machine marches on and on. They have to rage against a non-existent evil to get what they want. An end to unions, so the people who write their bribe uh pay check can make more money. The facts are:
1. There is NO correlation between states that allow state employees to unionize and states that are running large deficits. The unions are not causing the deficits.
The reason they are not is quite simple. In states were unions are strong, the average family earns more money and is better educated. As a result state tax revenues go up. In states that fight unions, the average worker is poorer and less educated. Consequently the state collects less money.
2. On the average student performance is better in states that allow teacher unions than in states that do not. Compare Wisconsin school results to South Carolina and Mississippi school results.
Theo – you might want to actually read that study instead of taking your information from Faux News or a Republican propaganda site and look at the same statistics on the schools in the Southeast where teachers are not unionized.
3. There is no correlation between industries that fail and industries that are unionized. In fact the opposite has been the case. As I said earlier the unionized automobile and steel industries have survived and the largely un-unionized textile industry has died. Over the years unions have actually insisted on their members being trained in the latest technology by the industries they work for. Consequently they are better workers. Where as un-unionized companies have largely treated their workers as any other piece of disposable machinery.
Nothing is going to change the South Carolina mindset in the near future. This businesses of this state have paid the legislature to fight unions for a hundred years and that is not going to change.
So, what has this state gained from all its anti-union efforts? We have one of he highest unemployment rates in the country. Our workers are uneducated. We are running huge deficits. Our schools are well below average. We are one of the poorest states in the nation. Almost half of our population is on Medicaid. Our retirees have no pensions, they live on Social Security. We are not attracting new business to our state, because everyone in the country thinks we are a bunch of uneducated redneck hicks. When will we see the benefit of all this union fighting?
By Ultimate freedom February 23, 2011 at 1:17 pm
People should be allowed to form Unions. Employers should be allowed to fire people for any reason, like joining a union.
That is freedom for both sides.
By Good Ole Boy February 23, 2011 at 1:34 pm
James. I see you read the local propaganda at the local 47. You are delusional if you think state and local unfunded pension and healthcare obligations are not a serious crisis. Regardless of their current impact on a current year’s budget (and I don’t have any figures handy), the unfunded obligations are simply unsustainable. Much of it comes from deals whereby public workers are given a modest salary in exchange for an early retirement and a whopping pension. The public-sector unions have maximized these cadillac deals to the detriment of the taxpayer.
Comparing Wisconsin schools to SC and Mississippi schools and claiming that it is because of unionization is disingenuous. I guess demographics plays no factor? I submit that it THE most critical factor.
Finally, you like to point out that “there is no correlation between such and such” and then point out all of these supposed correlations that you use to bolster your points, such as your claim that there is no correlation between industries that fail and those that survive. Rather than compare different industries, which are apples and oranges, how about look at a single industry — the auto industry — and try explaining how unionization had nothing to do with GMC’s bankruptcy.
By noone February 23, 2011 at 2:14 pm
I have read a lot of arguments that say the union is good and we should support what they are saying. And I have read a lot of you saying that anyone with a brain can see what is being done. But none of you saying that the unions are the victims have said anything about the money that these unions members make. According to the US Census Bureau the average income for A Teacher in Wisconsin, that is one person, is $48,267, that is benefits and all. The average HOUSEHOLD income in Wisconsin, for those of you who are cheering for the unions pay attention because this is a TWO person household, is $51,237. One teacher makes as much as two private sector workers.
Now no matter how you slice it the teachers are demanding that the people who make half of what they make pay for their health care and pension. There is no defense for this. The Unions are wrong.
By James February 23, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Good Ole Boy,
I’ve never been in a union or read one piece of union literature. But I am fairly versed in US History.
Of course demographics play a roll. So why are the demographics in Wisconsin better than the demographics in SC? They are both blue collar states. Both had economies built around manufacturing for most of the last 100 years. SC should be better, right? After all we had a lower cost of doing business, no real regulations, no unions to worry about.
Could the demographics have been affected by the fact the average worker in Wisconsin over the last 100 years made more than the average worker in South Carolina. Could the demographics have been affected by the fact the average Wisconsin worker and his family received better health care than the average SC worker and his family? Could the demographics have been affected by the fact the average child of a Wisconsin worker received a better education that the average child of a SC worker? Is it possible unions help the middle class in Wisconsin grow more rapidly than the middle class in SC.
Regarding GM, there is plenty of blame to go around. Unions and Management both played a roll; but in the end I guess I would rather have a bankrupt and reconstituted US Car company, than a company that was sliced up and sent to China and Mexico one plant at time. And that is exactly what would have happened to the US automobile industry had unions not fought to keep US plants open. Perhaps you will recall that it was Reagan, at the behest of labor unions, who told the Japanese that he would cut the number of cars they could import into the US if they did not build plants here. Which they did. Had he not done so, the American auto makers would probably have gone out of business in the 1980s.
By Good Ole Boy February 23, 2011 at 8:07 pm
James, I’m not saying the demographics are “better” in South Carolina than Wisconsin, but they are very different in one crucial category that nobody likes to talk about. I’m not sure if you are putting that in your analysis or ignoring it by mistake or on purpose.
By MrJewStein February 24, 2011 at 5:03 pm
dirtbogger ~~~~~~ SHALOM
By Boat February 25, 2011 at 10:54 am
“Quick … tell us which sector is better and more efficiently managing its finances?”
Quick, tell us who in the public sector manages those finances? State employees? Did overpaid teachers get Wisconsin here, or poor fiscal management by politicians and state executives?
By OhNoNotAgain February 25, 2011 at 11:28 am
What’s not being addressed is the excuse about why state and local government employees have such great benefits.
I have heard it said many a time that the pay sucks and the hours suck and the jobs generally suck, so they have to offer great benefits. And I’m saying I have heard government officials say such.
Now, what if instead of S.C.’s elaborate pay system, we offered everyone a 401 (k) or some such? It’s the retirement the public, if it’s lucky, can expect to have in addition to its Social Security?
Would that save the state and government any money so that it could afford better salaries and maybe give a little back?
What if legislators could only count on a 401 (k) from the state? What if they had a health plan just like the rest, instead of the cushy deal they give themselves?
How much money would the federal government save if it gave all employees a 401 (k) instead of their retirement. If Congress removed the guaranteed salary they give themselves for life?
If we didn’t pay presidents a guaranteed salary for life? I would grant the exception that I do believe we have an obligation toward security for ex-presidents?
What if the health plan for Congress was just like what we have, IF we are lucky enough to have an employer who offers one?
How much money would be saved? A study should be done.
I’d also say you have to guarantee to honor the obligations already made for any employee, but it could be insttitued immediately for anyone going forward.
I think it would save a ton of money. But they ought to do a study.
By T4 February 27, 2011 at 6:43 am
Rob,
I bet that pediatrician was glad to accept his low paying position, in exchange for a student loan discharge – on the taxpayer dime, no doubt. Some choose loan forgiveness over income; others work for years to accrue interest in state benefits, as agreed upon.
Your friend should reconsider his/her options as soon as the loan-forgiveness term has tolled.
By Kevin February 28, 2011 at 10:16 am
Pretty much agreeing with dirtbogger, athos, Voice, James.
The unions haven’t created the budget “crisis” in Wisconsin, the governor did. The unionized workers are WILLING to take the cuts that the governor has asked them to, but he still has to end collective bargaining? What about the parts that basically put the power plants on the market for no-bid sales? Privatizing electricity is questionable at best (SCE&G’s rate hikes every 3 months is proof of that), but no-bid screams corruption.
And the unions are the bad guys? Just remember that there are extremes to both sides of the aisle, and as much as you guys are singing the horrors of unions you are ignoring the horrors of corruption and monopolization.