Wisconsin governor: balance budget by breaking unions

[irishmick79]

Wow. Being from Madison, I have a lot of family and friends who work in education or for the state in some form or another. A mutual friend of our family in fact is married to one of the democrat senators currently in illinois. When the republicans did this, it was like a bomb hit my Facebook news feed. Even the folks I know who are fairly apolitical are incensed about this. I've never seen wisconsin people so angry about a political issue.

Make no mistake, the wisconsin democrats are getting ready to go to the matresses on this. Get ready for some ugly politics.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ready to "go to the matresses on this." ? Not sure I have heard that one before.

[irishmick79]

Ready to "go to the matresses on this." ? Not sure I have heard that one before.

Reference from the Godfather when the shit hits the fan and full-on mafia war breaks out.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Ready to "go to the matresses on this." ? Not sure I have heard that one before.

Reference from the Godfather when the shit hits the fan and full-on mafia war breaks out.

It's also where the public-sector employees, and people otherwise not wealthy white businessmen will be until the next election. Only in this case, it'll be face-down, tail-up, and taking it without lube. In one small way, I'm impressed by Wisconsin Republicans. It takes real panache to execute the biggest, most blatant, move of political assholery in a generation.

[Broken]

And we see the GOP take another step on their "we're the only real americans" road. With a few exceptions here and there, it seems that a sufficient core of Republicans have assembled in various states (and possibly the House of Representatives) to push their agenda regardless of consequences since laws, treaties, and rules of parliamentary procedure are only things that happen to other people who don't share their righteous cause. Respect for the rule of law is one of the foundations of modern democracy and the antics of the GOP in Wisconsin and elsewhere makes it perfectly clear that they couldn't care less.

[Fire Fly]

If anyone is not aware, Wisconsin will be having an election for state supreme court justice on April 5. This election will certainly be used as a testing grounds to gauge public reaction towards the governor. The incumbent, David Proser, is already being heavily supported by conservative groups like the Wisconsin Club for Growth while the challenger, JoAnne Kloppenburg, is already getting plenty of support from unions. I should point out that both people have accepted public financing, $300k, for their campaigns.

[SirNitram]

And Checkmate

Madison - After police carried demonstrators out of the state Assembly Thursday, Republicans entered the chamber and approved Gov. Scott Walker's bill repealing most collective bargaining by public employee unions.

The body voted 53-42 in favor of the budget-repair proposal, sending the bill to the Republican governor after an epic month of struggle unlike anything in living memory in Wisconsin politics. But even with the battle won by Republicans, a wider war remains for both sides. It will likely be fought in the courts and through recall efforts against 14 senators.

All Democrats voted against the bill and were joined by four Republicans - Dean Kaufert of Neenah, Lee Nerison of Westby, Travis Tranel of Cuba City and Richard Spanbauer of Oshkosh. All other Republicans and the body's lone independent, Bob Ziegelbauer of Manitowoc, voted for the bill.

In a statement, Walker hailed the vote.

"I applaud all members of the Assembly for showing up, debating the legislation and participating in democracy," he said. "Their action will save jobs, protect taxpayers, reform government, and help balance the budget. Moving forward we will continue to focus on ensuring Wisconsin has a business climate that allows the private sector to create 250,000 new jobs."

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said that the governor would sign the bill "as soon as possible" but not on Thursday.

After Republicans in the Assembly cut off debate a little more than three hours after it started, Democrats jumped up to protest the vote on the bill repealing decades-old labor provisions. Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) brought a megaphone out from under his desk and through it yelled, "Mr. Speaker, I demand to be recognized."

He was ignored.

The crowd erupted with the now familiar chants of "Shame! Shame!" as Republicans filed out of the chamber.

Just before the session, the Rev. Jesse Jackson held a prayer and asked for unity between Republicans and Democrats - a brief bipartisan respite in a day of boiling debate and thundering demonstrations.

But the moment was quickly over. In the tense atmosphere at the Capitol Thursday, Republican senators said they had received death threats for supporting the legislation.

Democrats and the public said they were closed out of the statehouse for a time in the morning before the Assembly met, with Rep. David Cullen (D-Milwaukee) saying he was forced to climb through a ground-floor window to get into the building. A small group of State Patrol officers were equipped in riot gear Thursday but never called into action.

Outside the Assembly chamber, hundreds of demonstrators were in the hallways and in the rotunda, their eyes and voices aimed at the debate within. Meanwhile, inside the chamber, the public galleries above the lawmakers were full.

Early in the session, Barca (D-Kenosha) called for the removal of Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon). Nearby in Madison Thursday morning, lawyers for Barca filed a complaint with the Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne alleging Fitzgerald and a legislative committee violated the state's open meetings law Wednesday when it passed the measure. Republicans deny that claim.

"Your speaker is impaired," Barca yelled on the Assembly floor as the protesters could be heard chanting outside the chamber. "Our democracy is out of control in Wisconsin . . .  You all know it, you all feel it."

But Jeff Fitzgerald said that the vote needed to be taken and that there had been adequate debate - the Assembly debated a previous version of the bill for 61 hours before passing it on Feb. 25. Fitzgerald said the bill was a "tough vote" for Republicans and a political "gamble" but was needed to balance the state budget and end an intolerable financial situation for the state.

"You know what? We feel it's the right thing to do to get this state back on the right track," Fitzgerald said.

The Assembly voted, 57-37, to deny Barca's request to strip Fitzgerald of his post. Republicans said the move was a delay tactic to slow passage of the bill.

At a news conference Thursday in West Allis, Walker said the bill will help state and local governments and schools avoid massive layoffs and increases in property taxes. The governor has proposed cutting roughly $1 billion in aid to schools and local governments over the next two years to help resolve a $3.5 billion deficit in the 2011-'13 state budget.

Other states also are also making deep cuts but have not passed tools that will help local governments, like Wisconsin is doing, Walker said.

Under the measure passed Thursday by the Assembly, most school, local and state employees would have to pay half the cost of their pensions - 5.8% of pay for typical state employees - and at least 12% of the cost of their health care premiums. Wages could not be raised by more than inflation each year, unless approved by voters in a referendum.

The proposal would help the state erase $37.5 million of a $137 million shortfall in the fiscal year that runs through June 30, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

The remaining $99.5 million deficit would have to be addressed with a separate piece of legislation. Lawmakers hope to do that by restructuring a $165 million bond payment, which they say they would need to do by early April.

At the Capitol Thursday, demonstrators were dragged and escorted out of the Assembly by police after they said they were willing to risk arrest to block a vote. The Walker administration, which had not opened to the building at 8 a.m., then opened the statehouse to the public.

Taylor Tengwall, 21, of Duluth, Minn., said, "They grabbed me by the shoulders and took me out."

Walker's Department of Administration said in a statement that the decision to delay the opening of the statehouse was "due to the events the previous night when thousands of people entered the building after the Capitol was to have been closed for the evening and more than 200 people remained overnight."

For a time Thursday morning, the Capitol was closed to members of the media who were outside the building and the Assembly was closed off to some members of the media who were inside the building. The delay opening the building angered protesters outside who began banging on doors and windows, demanding to be let in.

On Wednesday evening with the 14 Senate Democrats still in Illinois, the Senate abruptly voted to pass the budget repair bill. The bill passed the Senate 18-1, with Sen. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) voting no.

In West Allis, Walker said the action by the Senate Wednesday night was legal, contrary to claims by opponents, including some of the 14 Democratic senators who fled to Illinois in an effort to keep Walker's budget-repair bill from being approved.

From Feb. 17 until Wednesday, the Senate Democrats were able to block a vote on the original version of the bill because the state constitution requires 20 senators to be present for bills that authorize spending money. Republicans control the house 19-14.

Walker said appropriation measures were removed from the bill and that allowed the Senate to approve it. Although the bill contains requirements that employees pay half the cost of their pensions and pay toward health care premiums, Walker said those fiscal items did not require that 20 senators vote.

Once Republicans determined it was legal for a vote on a bill containing those measures, Walker said they decided to proceed with it. Walker said the pension and health care measures had to be included because they are the tools school districts and local governments need to avoid layoffs and hikes in property taxes.

They will create $1.5 billion in savings for local government and schools over two years, Walker said. Democrats have questioned savings estimates for state and local governments.

Asked whether Republicans had pulled a dirty trick by stripping the bill of appropriation items and then approving it, Walker said the dirty trick is what the 14 missing senators have done in the last several weeks.

"You can't mail in your vote," he said of the absent senators.

He told voters in those Senate districts to ask why those senators are not in Wisconsin. Those voters also should ask who is calling the shots. Walker suggested it was Miller, Miller's staff or "union leaders from Washington, D.C." instructing the missing 14 on what to do.

Some of the Democrats who have been boycotting the Senate for three weeks said they would return to Wisconsin once the bill passes the Assembly. But they had not crafted their exact plans for return, and Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) issued a statement saying they would not return on Thursday after earlier indicating they might.

Republicans devised a plan to get around the impasse and hurriedly approved the bill late in the day after meeting for hours behind closed doors. Walker met with them for more than half an hour at the start of the private meeting.

Just before the Senate vote, a committee stripped some financial elements from the bill, which they said allowed them to pass it with the presence of a simple majority. The most controversial parts of the bill remain intact.

That committee, formed just two hours earlier, quickly approved the bill as the lone Democrat at the meeting screamed that Republicans were violating the state's open meetings law - a claim Republicans disputed.

"This is a violation of law!" Barca bellowed.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) ignored him and ordered the roll to be taken.

Minutes later, the Senate took up the bill and passed it without debate.

Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar) decried the move as "political thuggery." He and other Democrats warned it could end the political careers of some Republican senators who are under the threat of recalls.

"I think it's akin to political hara-kiri," said Jauch. "I think it's political suicide."

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said Wednesday night that he attempted to drive back from Illinois to Madison to get to the Capitol before Republicans passed the measure.

"If they decide to kill the middle class, it's on them," he said.

Let's face it. Walker will sign it. Recalls on GOPers can begin from now until next year. Recall on Walker is 2012. Repealing this in 2012. Cheat, lie, steal... And they won. Time to move to removing these GOPers from office. Frankly, even if you hate Obama and the democrats now, I find it hard to beleive anyone should just stay home next time to 'make a point'. The point is being made by the other side: Either way, we'll cheat, bribe, and steal, and if you can't take majorities, too bad.

[Broken]

If anyone is interested in sorting through the legislative speak, here is a pdf of what the Senate in Wisconsin passed. It is pretty much what you expect, ripping away bargaining rights, "cost" savings that land squarely on the poor and middle-class, and even sneaking in a reduction in wetlands protection for good measure.

In case anyone was still operating under the delusion this entire power play was about budgets or even just the Right's fanatical hatred of unions, we just got this gem from State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald

FITZGERALD: Well if they flip the state senate, which is obviously their goal with eight recalls going on right now, they can take control of the labor unions. If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.

The only good (or rather not-bad news) I have heard recently is that one of the banks seen as a big supporter of Governor Walker and this union-busting spree had the protesters start closing their accounts en-masse to the point where the local branch had to close its doors as there were too many people trying to get in. While I doubt a massive kick in the money-bags of the banks and businesses that support the far right and its tools like Walker, can be organized and sustained, its a nice thought.

[Alphawolf55]

What about the whole thing about the Governor being able to sell Public Plants with no bids and no commission needed.

[SirNitram]

That was included. So was slashing the Earned Income Tax Credit. Fiscal things, without the fiscal quorum. It's like I said: Laws Are For Little People. They happily ignore them.

Even more fun: The Senate there decided, unanimously, not to print or read any part of the bill. In short, they pulled out there rubber stamps.

A point to consider: There are three aging nuclear plants in Wisconsin, all of which will be up for no-bid contracting to operate. Raise your hand if you honestly beleive the Koch Brothers buying of them will not cut corners.

[Patrick Degan]

According to The Daily Show blogsite which ran this photo:



the image is not a Photoshop job but real. Apparently, state DOT workers put that sign up.

[Broken]

Whether the power plant sales were included in the bill is actually, legally unclear. As they are reporting over at Crooksandliars

I just spent a couple of hours going through the Wisconsin statutes, as published today. There were three iterations of the Budget Repair Bill, as published on the site. The March 10th report linked above outlines all three, so for consistency I'm going to refer to them as that report does. There is the Governor's bill, the Joint Finance, and the Conference Committee version.

The Governor's bill had the plant sale provision as originally reported earlier by Heather. The Joint Committee resolution modified that provision in certain respects, but did not materially change the basics. It added a review period and required a cost-benefit analysis, among other things. The Conference Committee version stripped everything out relating to sale or lease of facilities, leaving only the language pertaining to debt service.

According to what I can find on the Wisconsin Legislature site, the version which is now law includes the sale provisions as agreed to by the Joint Finance committee. State Senator Chris Larson confirmed that awhile ago on twitter, too. He also said he thought the two bills were identical as passed.

One of two things is going on here. Either the "Conference Committee" was a sham and they passed a bill which actually required a bigger quorum to pass, given the fiscal impact; OR, they substituted the Joint Finance version in the Assembly to include the broader powers after passing the narrower version in the Senate.

As SirNitram pointed out, this is either a case of "Laws Are For Little People" or a mistake from hastily pushing through a bill in a manner those Republicans knew to be shady and quite possibly illegal. After all, its so hard to keep track of what version of a bill your voting on when the process is quite possibly against the law.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

This is going to be a disaster, nuke plants or not. I give them two years before the rioting starts.

While I doubt a massive kick in the money-bags of the banks and businesses that support the far right and its tools like Walker, can be organized and sustained, its a nice thought.

No reason at all to not do this anyway. Let's find out what products and services they provide, then find (or start: hello business opportunity!) apolitical or liberal substitutes for these right-wing banksters. Oil's going to be tough, but possibly doable and massively rewarding. Banks are a bit easier if annoying to dodge with the hassle of moving your money and giving all your accounts payable the new numbers after you get past the chance the damn bank decides to shut early for the day. At least there's no daunting technological wizardry to master. Just patience and iron will. We must choose to do these things, not because they are easy or hard, but because the rewards promise to be worth our best effort.

[Blankman]

Ready to "go to the matresses on this." ? Not sure I have heard that one before.

Reference from the Godfather when the shit hits the fan and full-on mafia war breaks out.

sounds like a good reason to break union power..I don't want to live in Greece. I'm sure it's a nice place to visit, but I don't want unions fucking things up for the average person.

Why do govt workers think they have the "right" to collective bargain? After all, they are bargaining against the very people who pay their salaries, the taxpayers.

[Blankman]

btw, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with private sector unions. I just don't see the need for public sector unions.

A person or business can freely enter into a contract with or without a union. A govt has it's hands tied if a union is involved. There is no choice.

[Simon_Jester]

sounds like a good reason to break union power..I don't want to live in Greece. I'm sure it's a nice place to visit, but I don't want unions fucking things up for the average person.

Why do govt workers think they have the "right" to collective bargain? After all, they are bargaining against the very people who pay their salaries, the taxpayers.

Because they are not bargaining against the taxpayers. They are bargaining against the representatives of the taxpayers, who might otherwise run roughshod over the state employees for the sake of achieving some bizarre political wet-dream.

See, this falls under the heading of "minority rights." State employees have certain legitimate rights that should be protected (reasonable working conditions and so on), simply because they are people. On top of that, the public sector unions play an important role in protecting the civil service system from political interference- and yes, that's important. The organs of government have to keep functioning no matter who is elected; change to the basic features of the system has to be gradual.

You do not want to create a situation where the legislature can decide on a whim to cut every state employee's salary by 33% and have all the experienced workers quit at the same time. Or where they can decide to redesign the promotion system to put political appointees in charge of functions that rightly belong to the civil service (which used to be a common practice called the "spoils system," and we got really lousy government out of it).

In situations like that, the public sector unions may be speaking just as clearly for the public interest as the legislature. A functioning, healthy republic does need certain unelected bodies within the state to act as checks and balances on the legislature, unless the legislature can be trusted to be responsible and restrained. Like the federal judiciary in the US.

In the case of Wisconsin, the way that the Republicans have pushed this through makes it very clear that their desire to break the unions has little to do with their desire to solve the budget crisis their policies put the state into. To cynical old men, this suggests that the reasons they want to break the unions involve radical policy changes that will hurt public sector workers (say, screwing with the school system or selling off state-owned enterprises to corrupt sleazebags).

...

Also, I'd argue that in countries where unions actually have enough political power to be worth mentioning, they don't fuck things up for the average person, when all is said and done. The problems they create by insisting on higher benefits are likely to be offset by the benefits they create by improving the working environment, and by offering normal citizens a way to organize and influence politics that helps to cancel out the natural advantage of wealthy interests in that field.

[Blankman]

Because they are not bargaining against the taxpayers. They are bargaining against the representatives of the taxpayers

Is that not the same thing? The voters, the vast majority of whom are taxpayers, have voted in a new govt that is trying to push an agenda to change the way the current system works. Just because a system is present does not make it the best or correct way to

The basics of this, the Occum's Razor if you will, is that there is no need for public sector unions in Western countries anymore. The standard of living is quite high and it's not a matter of if people are living well, it's a matter of political power.

With the recession and many people having to cut back, why on earth shouldn't the public unions? Also, public unions are in a unique place in that if they "doctor note" strike, it's fairly difficult to find temporary replacements. Which is why they shouldn't be able to collective bargain in the first place. You are over a barrel before you even start the negotiations.

Realistically, if there was any place of employment where you could "cut the fat", by that I mean hire/fire with no union contract, It would be govt jobs.

[Blankman]

Also, I'd argue that in countries where unions actually have enough political power to be worth mentioning, they don't fuck things up for the average person, when all is said and done. The problems they create by insisting on higher benefits are likely to be offset by the benefits they create by improving the working environment, and by offering normal citizens a way to organize and influence politics that helps to cancel out the natural advantage of wealthy interests in that field.

As I've said, I don't have a problem with private unions. Give the employee's a a fair chance to vote and give the employer a fair chance to reject. That is competition. Public unions are the almost natural opposite. I don't have a union problem, per se, it's just that I don't see the need for the govt that is charged with enforcing the law having employee's that are unionized.

State: Congrats, you're hired!
Employee: What are my rights!
State: Err, you got hired and you probably won't get fired
Employee: Whaaaat? I need more than that!!!!!
State: You can't be serious. We are offering a well paying job in a field you applied for and it has good benefits with an almost nil chance of being fired.
Employee: Not good enough, Union!!!!!
State: WTF? whatever, okay, you can have a union. Just don't bankrupt us. We have to balance the budget.
Union Boss: We need more.
State: Sigh, okay
Union Boss: We really need more
State: We are going into deficit spending, but stop calling us names and it's a deal
Union Boss: We need more, NOW!!!!!!
State: Naw, that's enough. We are one crisis away from a disaster.
Voters: Holy Shit! We are in debt to how much in promises to unions!?!!??!?!

And that's the short story of how the US and other countries are coming to this point.

[wautd]

Also, I'd argue that in countries where unions actually have enough political power to be worth mentioning, they don't fuck things up for the average person, when all is said and done. The problems they create by insisting on higher benefits are likely to be offset by the benefits they create by improving the working environment, and by offering normal citizens a way to organize and influence politics that helps to cancel out the natural advantage of wealthy interests in that field.

As I've said, I don't have a problem with private unions. Give the employee's a a fair chance to vote and give the employer a fair chance to reject. That is competition. Public unions are the almost natural opposite. I don't have a union problem, per se, it's just that I don't see the need for the govt that is charged with enforcing the law having employee's that are unionized.

State: Congrats, you're hired!
Employee: What are my rights!
State: Err, you got hired and you probably won't get fired
Employee: Whaaaat? I need more than that!!!!!
State: You can't be serious. We are offering a well paying job in a field you applied for and it has good benefits with an almost nil chance of being fired.
Employee: Not good enough, Union!!!!!
State: WTF? whatever, okay, you can have a union. Just don't bankrupt us. We have to balance the budget.
Union Boss: We need more.
State: Sigh, okay
Union Boss: We really need more
State: We are going into deficit spending, but stop calling us names and it's a deal
Union Boss: We need more, NOW!!!!!!
State: Naw, that's enough. We are one crisis away from a disaster.
Voters: Holy Shit! We are in debt to how much in promises to unions!?!!??!?!

And that's the short story of how the US and other countries are coming to this point.

Nice, did you made that up yourself?

[Aaron]

Whats that?

Wisconsion Public Servants paid less.

Edit: Whoops

The campaign against state and local workers is often justified with claims that they are privileged relative to their private-sector peers or have somehow been cushioned from the effects of the recent recession and slow recovery. These claims are clearly false.

In Wisconsin, which has become a focal point in this debate, public servants already take a pretty hefty pay cut just for the opportunity to serve their communities (Keefe 2010). The figure below shows that when comparing the total compensation (which includes non-wage benefits such as health care and pensions) of workers with similar education, public-sector workers consistently make less than their private–sector peers. Workers with a bachelor’s degree or more—which constitute nearly 60% of the state and local workforce in Wisconsin—are compensated between $20,000 less (if they just have a bachelor’s degree) to over $82,000 a year less (if they have a professional degree, such as in law or medicine).

It is necessary for making true apples-to-apples comparisons to control for worker characteristics such as education in order to best measure a worker’s potential earnings in a different sector or industry. Controlling for a larger range of earnings predictors—including not just education but also age, experience, gender, race, etc., Wisconsin public-sector workers face an annual compensation penalty of 11%. Adjusting for the slightly fewer hours worked per week on average, these public workers still face a compensation penalty of 5% for choosing to work in the public sector.

The deficit that Wisconsin faces is caused by the current economic downturn and the recent tax cut package. It has nothing to do with the compensation of the people that educate our children, keep the streets safe and clean, keep dangerous chemicals out of our water, and keep insurance companies from taking advantage of us. These public servants are already paid less than those in the private sector, and nationally, this gap has actually been increasing over the past few decades (Bender and Heywood). Instead of opportunistically using these hard times to target workers who—because of their public service—already take a substantial pay cut, Wisconsin politicians should focus on creating jobs and boosting the incomes of all workers.

Citations

Bender, Keith and John Heywood, 2010. “Out of Balance: Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation over 20 Years”, National Institute on Retirement Security, Washington, D.C., April.

Keefe, Jeffrey H. 2011. "Are Wisconsin Public Employees Overcompensated?", Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., February 10.

So not only are the Public Sector dudes in Wisconsin getting paid less, now they've lost the right to bargain. Guess what will happen now?

Yup, expect wages to drop further. In debt to the unions my ass.

[Zixinus]

So "private" unions against corporations is OK but an union for teachers, firefighters and police officers is bad because... they are arguing against political representatives?

"Government" workers need unions for the exact same reasons as "private" unions. Just because the guy giving the paychecks is democratically elected, that doesn't mean that he has absolute power over the government's servants. That's not how modern democracy works. That, and it is quite easily possible that the democratically elected guy is abusing the very same servants.

As for the world financial crisis, it's not the private fault of the unions. It is the fault of the very representatives spending at such a rate that it makes a drunker sailor look financially wise.

[Lonestar]

So "private" unions against corporations is OK but an union for teachers, firefighters and police officers is bad because... they are arguing against political representatives?

It's bad because, in theory, Public Sectors could "hold the taxpayer hostage" by withholding services. Montgomery County in Maryland was facing crippling budget problems because of the strength of the Teachers Union, and when the real estate bubble burst serious arbitration had to occur to get the Teachers Union(and other public sector Unions)to take serious cuts. In Virginia, where public sector employees don't have collective bargaining, Fairfax County simply issued a pay freeze.

I'm not positive how much responsibility local governments in Europe have to pay for local services, but in the US States and localities usually pay the lions share for day-to-day operations. And unlike the Feds, the State of Virginia(for example) has a lot less fiscal options if the economy goes South.

Now, it's important to note that in the case of Wisconsin, the "fiscal disaster" was largely one of Walker and the Republicans own making, and it was because of them that Wisconsin is facing work stoppages. In other words, perhaps taking a crack at the Public Sector Unions in that state was not the best use of taxpayer time and money.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Also, I'd argue that in countries where unions actually have enough political power to be worth mentioning, they don't fuck things up for the average person, when all is said and done. The problems they create by insisting on higher benefits are likely to be offset by the benefits they create by improving the working environment, and by offering normal citizens a way to organize and influence politics that helps to cancel out the natural advantage of wealthy interests in that field.

As I've said, I don't have a problem with private unions. Give the employee's a a fair chance to vote and give the employer a fair chance to reject. That is competition.

This, of course, ignores the fact that private unions are almost a non-issue in the United States . . . what, with fewer than ten percent of private employees being unionized and unions being completely disallowed in white collar America?

Public unions are the almost natural opposite.

Proof? And, of course, what has just been enacted into law in Wisconsin is the complete opposite of "competition." Now the employees don't get a vote (unless you count bending over and saying "Yes Massah" and begging on the street corner to be a choice.)

I don't have a union problem, per se, it's just that I don't see the need for the govt that is charged with enforcing the law having employee's that are unionized.

And why shouldn't they have a voice? Government work is not exactly pleasant. Taking out garbage? Police work? Teaching at public schools? All of that under management that changes every two years? If anything, we don't pay these people enough for what they do.

State: Congrats, you're hired!
Employee: What are my rights!
State: Err, you got hired and you probably won't get fired
Employee: Whaaaat? I need more than that!!!!!

And here we see how things work in the world of a tireless defender of wealthy white businessmen. Plebes should consider themselves lucky just to have jobs. Even plebes working for the state because, you know, the state should be as small as possible, so as not to get between wealthy white businessmen and their profits.

State: You can't be serious. We are offering a well paying job in a field you applied for and it has good benefits with an almost nil chance of being fired.
Employee: Not good enough, Union!!!!!

The reason for the decent benefits? The union. Of course, in the world of a tireless defender of wealthy white businessmen, we should trust the Great Hand of the Market to promote wealthy white businessmen to willingly allow a trifling thing like the well-being of the plebes to get in the way of profits. Were there not a union for public-sector employees, they would certainly not be getting good benefits; and given that management changes every few years, they'd have no expectation of job security.

[Zixinus]

I believe that there is a gap in the US education (or at least, definitely a gap where people like Blankman and Walker come from) about how the idea of unions were actually born in the 19th century.

This was a century of child labor being the norm, no set of minimum wage, no laws regarding how are to be paid (I've read about some mining companies where miners were forced to use the company store because they were paid in company "coupons" instead of cash), 12 hour or more work hours without brakes, absolutely no regard to worker safety or well-being (many city workers died due to workplace conditions), no holidays of any kind, no legal defense and so on. The list of horrors endured were endless and not unlike the conditions of what we consider to be a poor, third-world country's.

Is that an ideal condition to aspire to?

[Simon_Jester]

Don't you see, Zixinus? That happened in the past, and is therefore irrelevant! This is the future, and nobody tries to abuse their workers in the future, right?

Is that not the same thing? The voters, the vast majority of whom are taxpayers, have voted in a new govt that is trying to push an agenda to change the way the current system works. Just because a system is present does not make it the best or correct way to

Remember "checks and balances?" And "loyal opposition?" Being elected isn't a blank check; there are still the rights, interests, and hopes of the other 47% of the population who didn't vote for you to consider. That means having groups capable of sticking up for said 47%.

It also means having groups whose responsibility is to preserve the health of the system- to make sure the republic and its government keep functioning. That's where public sector unions become useful, because they serve as a counterbalance when someone tries to abuse public sector employees OR (and this is important) enact policies that badly damage the government's ability to function correctly.

The basics of this, the Occum's Razor if you will, is that there is no need for public sector unions in Western countries anymore. The standard of living is quite high and it's not a matter of if people are living well, it's a matter of political power.

The standard of living for a big chunk of the American public has fallen- sometimes in absolute terms, very often in relative terms- for decades. Wages have stagnated, health care and education prices have skyrocketed, and the availability of good-paying jobs for much of the population has dried up. I don't think this is a good time to dismantle the unions on account of the standard of living being so high.

With the recession and many people having to cut back, why on earth shouldn't the public unions? Also, public unions are in a unique place in that if they "doctor note" strike, it's fairly difficult to find temporary replacements. Which is why they shouldn't be able to collective bargain in the first place. You are over a barrel before you even start the negotiations.

This is quite often the case in any private company not operated by unskilled labor. Moreover, in the US public sector unions don't do this the way you imply- it can be a problem in other countries (though they manage to get by, it seems), but it's hardly been a problem for us. Even where it has been a problem, it is a tiny problem compared to, say, what happens when someone tries to dismantle the state government.

Realistically, if there was any place of employment where you could "cut the fat", by that I mean hire/fire with no union contract, It would be govt jobs.

No. Why?

We used to have a system where elected officials hired or fired public employees at will. It was called the "spoils system," because after every election the new government regarded the right to appoint its supporters to government jobs as the 'spoils' of winning the election. It stank to high heaven, and it was a recipe for bad government. The state, and the citizens,* need to be protected against that coming back.

On top of that, if people working for the government have no unions, no benefits, and no rights as employees, no one will want to work for the government- you will see an outflow of talent from government organizations, because being a teacher isn't a great deal to begin with, and becomes a much worse one when they take away your dental plan and pension.

Is that what you want?

*Not just "taxpayers," citizens. People deal with the state in other capacities than just paying taxes to it, and have other concerns about how it operates than "can we shave another dollar off my tax burden?" It is very much a two-way street, and there's a reason why the term 'citizen' gets used a lot in discussions of political theory. Talking only about 'taxpayers' ignores a lot about how people interact with their government.