These unions have no clothes
In the 1970s, when I was lad, labor strikes were a common feature of life: letter carriers, transit workers, garbage pick-up. We suffered these disruptions of life and the economic drains that attended them with grumpy resignation. That’s modern life, we thought.
Then Ronald Reagan faced down an illegal air traffic controllers’ strike in 1981 and Margaret Thatcher broke Britain’s powerful National Union of Miners in 1985. Since then widespread disruption from organized work stoppage—essentially, public hostage-taking—has receded into memories of the bad old days. Occasionally we’ve had to do without baseball or UPS.
The trouble that labor unions present nowadays has taken a different form. It’s quieter, subtler, more deadly, and it is unique to the public service worker unions. Ordinary unions unite a workforce for collective bargaining with an employer. The employer wants to make a profit by producing something or providing a service, and the workers are the direct human means of producing or providing it. The workers threaten to withhold their labor, and thus withhold profits from the employer and goods or services from the public, giving them leverage in negotiations for a better compensation contract. The employer and the employees have a clearly adversarial relationship.
But with public service unions, the relationship is fundamentally different. It’s not adversarial, but symbiotic. The government agrees to compensate the employees generously and, in turn, their union contributes generously to elected officials’ reelection campaigns. In other words, we make you rich, and you keep us powerful. There’s no conflict over money because the government pays their employees with taxpayer money. This creates a powerful incentive to drive the cost of labor far beyond levels that prevail outside of government, and all at the expense of the people whom both government and public service workers are supposedly serving.
Robert Costrell, an economics professor at University of Arkansas, reports, “The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005.” That’s the average. These people live in Wisconsin, not high-rent New York City. These are not the poor, shackled, danger-exposed garment workers of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory.
I heard government workers in Connecticut chanting, “We are the people!” Not so. They are what James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10 called a faction: “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” It’s right to be paid for your service, but when your compensation agreement promises to destroy the one you have agreed to serve, the arrangement is not only unjust but has irrational blindness at both ends of it.
But something has upset this quiet conspiracy against the public interest. The economic crisis has focused the attention of a cost-conscious public on the chief reason for state bankruptcy, and has brought Republican (read: non-union supported, i.e., union-opposed) governments to power in many states.
One such state, Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature are trying to withdraw legal support for these sham collective-bargaining rights. Governors like Walker are fighting not only for their state budgets, but also for the integrity of their state governments as governments. The question is: Will the state exist for the people in general or will it exist for the few, in this case almost exclusively to pay the salaries and retirement benefits of present and past state employees?
Margaret Thatcher faced a similar issue when she became British Prime Minister in 1979. The miners’ union had brought down Edward Heath’s Conservative government in 1974, and even Jim Callaghan’s Labour government fell in 1979 when the country came to a standstill from uncollected garbage and a thousand other union-built economic roadblocks. Thatcher knew that she would have to face down the unions over where sovereignty and the locus of democracy lay in Great Britain, in the elected government or in the labor unions.
The clash in Wisconsin shows the same question is at issue in America today. The Washington Post’s Karina vanden Heuvel expresses a truism among union members: “Madison has become ground zero in the battle for democracy in this country.” Yet the union-supported Democrats fled the state to prevent the state’s democratically elected legislative majority from passing the bill it thinks best for the people. Teachers on “sick leave,” a tiny minority, occupy the state capitol building shouting demands and citing “worker rights” as though these “rights” were in the Constitution and could trump anything the legislature decides by due process of law.
These unions have no clothes. They parade themselves on the news, chanting, as it were, “We’re a union like all the others! We’re a noble cause! We are fighting for the little guy.” But they are not a conventional union. They are not little guys. They are bankrupting the little guys. Now the nakedness of their claims is in full view.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top69 Comments to “These unions have no clothes”
In a nearby county a couple of years ago, the public service workers went on strike in the middle of winter (it was a snowy one). They had been offered a raise, but it wasn’t high enough. The union leader said it was a test case for other counties service workers. The county government stood firm. Farmers got their tractors out and plowed the roads. Store owners cleared the sidewalks in front of their stores. Life went on. In the end the union had to settle for the offered raise. No further strikes in other counties took place, because the residents of that county refused to be held hostage to the experiments of a union boss.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Wisconsin-Is-the-New-France-Entitlement-Derangement-Syndrome-David-French-02-18-2011.html
Mr French nails it.
I also read in WSJ online about a woman with a child with diabetes. She and her husband ea work for the state or other level of govt. She was commenting on the injustice of the state cutting her medicaid paymt ($600/month) which went to buy diabetic supplies for the child.
WSJ pointed out that with their combined income, the couple made well beyond the avg private sector employee in their state.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with Innes’ argument is that government workers are NOT rich, and are not, by and large, paid any more than private-sector counterparts. They’re paid less in many cases, and more in a few instances that the right keeps trotting out as “proof” that government workers are feeding at the trough.
This argument is, by design, turning workers against workers, all to the benefit of the wealthy who can keep their tax cuts if they convince enough people that the real problem is the government employee who wants $12 an hour to pick up garbage rather than $10.
The only thing surprising is how many people are falling for it.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner: Do you have a link to that WSJ article?
I doubt that you have it right because if they’re earning much money at all, they wouldn’t be eligible for Medicaid to begin with.
Report comment to moderator
D.C.Innes makes the false claim that excess labor costs have bankrupted government.
Let’s measure that.
D.C.Innes makes the immoral claim that people who sell their labor to government should not have the same rights as people who sell their labor to private employers.
Let’s fight over that.
D.C.Innes makes the larcenous claim that “government pays their employees with taxpayer money.” The wages that workers earn belong to the workers. Prior to that, government revenues belong to all the people, not to taxpayers.
D.C.Innes makes the specious claim that “Democrats fled the state to prevent the state’s democratically elected legislative majority from passing the bill it thinks best for the people.” The democratically determined rules of Wisconsin require a certain quorum and the voters elected enough Democrats to prevent a quorum. Meanwhile, Democrats are fulfilling their responsibilities to their constituents according to conscience. Their offices remain open for business and their cell phones on constantly. Presence in the senate chamber is not always necessary and is sometimes counter-productive.
D.C.Innes makes the delusional claim that teachers, firemen, police, and office workers “are not little guys. They are banrupting the little guys.”
Let’s fight to the finish.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s right to be paid for your service, but when your compensation agreement promises to destroy the one you have agreed to serve, the arrangement is not only unjust but has irrational blindness at both ends of it.”
There, you hit the nail on the head. This is my biggest gripe with unions today….
Report comment to moderator
Scroop. You are wrong. The state government is bankrupt because of the unions. It’s time for them to bug off…
Report comment to moderator
“D.C.Innes makes the immoral claim that people who sell their labor to government should not have the same rights as people who sell their labor to private employers.”
Hogwash. They can quit and go to work for someone else any time they want to. I sell my labor to a private employer and I don’t have “collective bargaining rights”. How is that the same thing?
Report comment to moderator
Prove that, MIM.
Report comment to moderator
MIM – As a private employee, you have the right to organize fellow workers to vote on whether or not to certify a union to bargain on your behalf. Innes argues that public employees shouldn’t be permitted to bargain collectively.
Report comment to moderator
Innes’ narrative is based on the false premise that public employees pick the voters.
Public employees can influence the selection of elected officials — but that’s up to the voters.
In the private sector a CEO determines compensation at will, but in government pay is set by legislatures and town councils which may fight about it.
Private employees can influence management through public relations, by voting their equity (pension funds), or by actual takeover. Public employees however cannot displace voters.
Innes’ rhetoric never survives analysis.
Report comment to moderator
Innes’ rhetoric never survives analysis.
Of course not. But he reinforces what people here want to believe, so factual rebuttals are mostly pointless.
Report comment to moderator
“Prove that, MIM.”
Dude. The state is overdrawn by about 11 times the amount the governor is asking them to cut…
And most of it is the benefits that are due to state employees…
It seems to me that they have a little TOO much leverage when this is the case.
Report comment to moderator
What’s to prove anyway? Isn’t it patently obvious?
Report comment to moderator
“Prior to that, government revenues belong to all the people, not to taxpayers”
The money government has to work with comes from taxes. Tax revenue comes from taxpayers. Prior to paying their taxes that money belonged to those who earned it, not some general “all the people.” Your assertion here is simply wrong.
“D.C.Innes makes the immoral claim that people who sell their labor to government should not have the same rights as people who sell their labor to private employers.”
The government is a monopoly (try undercutting your local sherrif’s office by jailing prisoners and serving writs at lower prices and see where it gets you) and its goods and services are defined and circumscribed by legislatures that represent the citizens that elected them and are therefore not amenable to modifications bargained for by some other entity. Innes’s claim is not immoral. It is simply factual.
Before engaging in a fight to the finish, you might want to go back and start over.
Report comment to moderator
. . . he reinforces what people here want to believe, so factual rebuttals are mostly pointless.
I love to cut and paste.
Report comment to moderator
97% of private worker do not have collective bargaining
0% of federal workers have collective bargaining
Many state workers do NOT have collective bargaining
Why does WI employee say it’s a right?
Report comment to moderator
Ken: The money government has to work with comes from taxes. Tax revenue comes from taxpayers. Prior to paying their taxes that money belonged to those who earned it, not some general “all the people.” Your assertion here is simply wrong.
But in the time after it’s paid as taxes and before it’s spent, it belongs to all the people, not the people who paid it. That’s what Scroop was referring to. Tax revenues are spent on behalf of all the people in a jurisdiction, not just the individuals who paid. That’s why you and your non-taxpaying child both get a paved road. It’s why your neighbor the accountant and his elderly grandmother living on Social Security both get their trash collected.
Report comment to moderator
They are not little guys. They are bankrupting the little guys.
Good line. Even though the unions are organized, the little guys have more votes. As one prominent leftist recently said, elections have consequences. Now the Left is learning that truth.
Report comment to moderator
Unions are designed to protect the lazy, they ride on the backs of the tax payer and have become parasites in our great country, the sooner we are rid of them the better.
Report comment to moderator
KEN- With respect, I don’t think you read my words correctly. I’m afraid there’s no alternative but to repeat and expound.
As soon as a worker does a day’s work for the government, the pay that the government hands over belongs to the worker. DCINNES ignored this indisputable point of ownership when he claimed, “. . . the government pays their employees with taxpayer money.” By the time the government cuts the paycheck, the money that the government pays is the worker’s money.
Before the worker perfects a moral claim upon the government’s cash, that cash is owned by “The People.” Recall the US Constitution: “Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form . . .” The Wisconsin Constitution starts with similar language.
Thus, according to the foundation of American government, the money in government cash accounts belongs ultimately to the governed. Taxpayers are a subset of “The People”, however, the latter set is not closed by taxpayers. Human societies consist of both producers and dependents, and the American franchise has no property qualifications.
You said this was wrong. Perhaps it’s quibbling, but it’s not wrong.
I agree that government revenues are mailed in by taxpayers but I’m sure that nobody mails their own money to the IRS. The money belongs to the government, which is why we call the 1040 a “tax return.” In a concession to convenience, the government allows taxpayers to hold the government’s money until the 15th of each quarter or longer upon the payment of penalties and interest, but the money is the government’s and taxpayers are obligated to return it. A taxpayer is a franchisee, and the government is the franchisor.
We’ve known this this since 1913. Everyone has had plenty of time to move to Somalia. L’etat, c’est nous.
KEN, if you’re concerned about your power to detain people, you really should emigrate to Somalia where there is no gun control and you could drive around in a technical like an avenging angel of the Lord, detaining leftists at will.
You didn’t explain why one’s fundamental rights as an employee depend upon the business model of one’s employer. Without a reasonable basis for discrimination, it’s immoral to deny rights to some which are available to others.
Report comment to moderator
“The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005.”
That’s fair and comparable to the private sector considering most teachers have 4 to 5 years post secondary education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#Income
Benefits bring it over 100K due to the ridiculous practice of health care being associated with the workplace as opposed to residence.
BTW — as a teacher in urban Ontario I would be taking a serious pay cut if I moved to Milwaukee.
The government agrees to compensate the employees generously and, in turn, their union contributes generously to elected officials’ reelection campaigns. In other words, we make you rich, and you keep us powerful. There’s no conflict over money because the government pays their employees with taxpayer money. This creates a powerful incentive to drive the cost of labor far beyond levels that prevail outside of government, and all at the expense of the people whom both government and public service workers are supposedly serving.
And how does this differ from the relationship between the gov’t and private corporations who have gov’t contracts? Using Innes’ logic he seems to suggests that gov’t officials would make corporations rich in order to keep them powerful. Grant gov’t contracts to corporations at inflated prices and they in turn will donate generously to your campaign. And this is all at the expense of the people the gov’t is supposedly serving.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, it would be nice if a college degree guaranteed that sort of salary!
Report comment to moderator
I find the lack of simple logic in this discussion on the part of the left astounding. Ok, let’s address the left’s point that “fairness” dictates we keep pay and benefits for public employees at a certain level, as it’s only fair. You know, that kind of ignores one rather important point-LIFE ISN’T FAIR, and neither is the economy. If a factory closes and all the workers get laid off, including ones who worked hard their whole lives to get ahead only to lose their jobs, it isn’t fair–but it is REALITY. Regardless of what “fair compensation” for those jobs might be–and I for one believe public employees are grossly overcompensated considering how much they make in relation to the average private sector job–the well is dry. You can’t give water out to fairly quench everyone’s thirst when the well is dry! It’s the economy, stupid–and your solution seems to be to make everyone be “fair” to public workers at their own expense. The entire country is hurting right now, and you expect us to accept that because workers are losing their “right” (a “right” they got only in the last 25 years or so in most cases,)they’re being treated unfairly? You make it sound as though without unions, the government will start treating its workers as slaves to be taken advantage of at every opportunity, and that is simply not true. HRW, I have stated before that we do not support crony capitalism any more than crooked unions, but right now we are tackling union greed and corruption. One issue at a time. Arguing that we shouldn’t bother to fix the union problem because crony capitalism is a problem is like saying we shouldn’t fix the toilet in the bathroom because the fridge is busted. Why should we be fair to government workers at the expense of being fair to the taxpayers? Those of us in the private sector can’t rely on “fairness”, so your argument seems to be that we should be “fair” to government workers since taxpayers can be COMPELLED to support government employees’ standard of living. How is that fair? If the private sector is hurting, WHY should government workers somehow be exempt from the effects of that? It’s the real world. Stuff happens that isn’t fair, and it isn’t JUST for you to demand that public workers get to keep all their salary and benefits when the people who pay the taxes that support them don’t get the same. What they do is irrelevant, how much it helps society is irrelevant. What matters is that we cannot AFFORD to let the gravy train roll on. Like it or not, if we take cuts across the board, so do they. I simply do not understand the mindset that says that they DESERVE such and such, so therefore they should get it, even if we have to hurt others to do so. It is not reasonable to allow unions to make lucrative deals to siphon off public money for political advantage at the expense of the voting taxpayers and then sit down across the table to negotiate pay with politicians they helped elect, politicians who have no incentive NOT to give in to any outrageous demand the unions make! After all, it’s not the POLITICIAN’S money that they waste, it’s OURS.
Report comment to moderator
Barracuda … some paragraph breaks would make your long, long posts easier to read.
You’ll still be way offbase and totally missing the point, but at least it will be easier to see that.
By the way, what’s going on in Wisconsin is not “union greed and corruption.” You say that so automatically it’s pretty clear you think you can’t have one without the other, but it’s not the case. And as long as you insist on going out of your way to insult working people, I’m not going to be inclined to take you seriously.
Report comment to moderator
This thread reads more like a dictionary. Tautologies abound. Scroop’s “By the time the government cuts the paycheck, the money that the government pays is the worker’s money” and the elaborative statements are confused. Here are a few more indiscernible snippets:
- the American franchise has no property qualifications
- the government allows taxpayers to hold the government’s money until the 15th of each quarter
- the money is the government’s and taxpayers are obligated to return it.
- A taxpayer is a franchisee, and the government is the franchisor.
Please correct me if I misunderstand, but the argument is that We The People – consisting of taxpaying and taxpayer-dependent individuals – own all the nations wealth, both public and private. Scroop illustrates the point by comparing the economic process with wealth held at a specific point in time.
This reminds me of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: position and momentum cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. Even the federal worker’s paycheck is held only temporarily and soon committed to the economic cycle.
If the government has independent wealth, eliminate income taxation. The better discussion is will the country’s economy collapse when the number of taxpayer-dependent voters exceeds the number of taxpayers?
Report comment to moderator
. . . the argument is that We The People – consisting of taxpaying and taxpayer-dependent individuals – own all the nations wealth, both public and private.
You’re forgiven for misunderstandig, WAGUS, even though it seems to be intentional.
No, “The People” don’t own all the nation’s wealth, only the assets of the US Government — the inventory that GSA tracks, the National Forests, the electromagnetic spectrum, the territorial waters, and so forth. “The People” make no claim whatsoever on anyone’s wealth (at least not upon any living person’s wealth, as the estate tax can be fairly conceived as an income tax on the heirs).
The income tax is a claim on income, not assets. This distinction isn’t trivial.
Conservadems and Republicans always misuse the possessive pronouns when talking about taxes and the government’s money. How absurd for self-portrayed defenders of property utterly to confuse the distinctions between your money, my money, and various sets of our money.
Fortunately nobody’s money may be taken without due process, which requires a showing that others have a legally- and ethically-justified claim to it.
You can argue that the income tax is too high or bad policy — go for it! But it’s incorrect to say that the income you owe to the income tax is “your” money, because it’s “The People’s.” If it was your money, you wouldn’t have to pay it. As soon as you recognize revenue as income, you must recognize the tax liability. Bookkeeping.
One of the ethical principles of society is that withholding wages is a crime, because income is a special form of obligation, unlike other debts. The government works for society and deserves its pay. Those “wages” belong to the government, not to individuals who owe the money.
It’s so Evangelical to disparage people who are dependent upon “We the People.” Let’s be proud of them like other civilized and humane people are around the world. I’m thinking of some folks I met at a sheltered workshop in Germany where workers produce non-economic products in a delightful setting and get marvy vacations to the Grand Canyon. Germans believe that these “dependents” actually produce value, and earn their compensation, even while they are too retarded to make a profit (I say that lovingly). The value they produce is the social dignity of work and the social expectation of meeting one’s needs, not to mention social redemption. With our legacy of slavery, we need redemption too.
Report comment to moderator
1. Many people don’t want to work in a competitive environment under a management that pressures them to work harder, produce more and keep costs down. If that is not what they want, fine, but they should accept fewer rewards for that choice.
2. What many other people prefer is to work under less pressure, with less accountability, fewer hours, more vacations, more pay, more benefits, earlier retirement, more air-conditioning and more comfort on the job.
The problem is that the people described in the second paragraph above want those guys working in a highly pressured and tough competitive environment (see paragraph #1) to pay for their pleasant preferences on the job with even greater tax burdens and fewer rewards. It is no coincidence that those lobbying for higher taxes are also those who are paid by the taxpayer.
Report comment to moderator
Government workers normally see the gov’t as a golden goose and are living a fairy tale life.
Report comment to moderator
Public sector unions and private sector unions differ fundamentally. Four quotes:
1. “Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers.” (David Brooks, Op-ed, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2011).
2. “Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.” (David Brooks, Op-ed, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2011).
3. “Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival.” (David Brooks, Op-ed, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2011).
4. “Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.” (David Brooks, Op-ed, New York Times, Feb. 21, 2011).
Report comment to moderator
Scroop’s polemic on taxes is definitional, analogical thinking that doesn’t add to the discussion. While income tax is a claim on income, assets are taxed annually – if you own a home or car – and at death, if your estate exceeds an admittedly high threshold – at the present.
He (I use the term rhetorically since I don’t know Scroop’s gender) correctly notes that money cannot be taken without due process but fails to answer my question: Can a nation survive if the majority of the electorate survives on the taxes of the minority? Similarly, can a governing coalition work when the participants vote selfishly without regard to integrity or fairness?
I’m without answer to the statement that the “ethical principles of society is that withholding wages is a crime”. It’s not a crime. Christians are commanded to pay them.
Finally, I assent with Scroop’s final point that capacity restrained individuals enrich our society. But that’s not what we’re arguing.
Report comment to moderator
WAGUS, you put words in my mouth. I never argued, as you claim I did, “We The People . . . own all the nations wealth, both public and private.” You need to acknowledge your misunderstanding. How can we converse when you say that I say things I don’t say?
I think my point about the distinction between income and assets with regard to federal taxation stands. The federal government doesn’t tax any assets of mine. Yes we have local property taxes, which are service taxes. I believe that Florida is the only state that taxes financial assets. Auto taxes are use taxes, because they are attached to registration. The estate tax is a transfer tax that is enforced by the power of Congress under the 16th Amendment “to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.” So one can fairly argue that it too is an income tax, not an asset tax.
Google “failure to pay wages,” WAGUS. Failure to pay your phone bill is not a third-degree felony. http://law.onecle.com/texas/labor/61.019.00.html Let us know if you stand by your misinformed opinion that, “It’s not a crime.”
If you don’t actually mean to disparage people who are dependent on “We the People” then please stop belaboring your ungracious and inaccurate distinction: We The People – consisting of taxpaying and taxpayer-dependent individuals – The Founders didn’t and you shouldn’t either.
I think that last paragraph actually would be my first answer to the topic you consider to be “a better discussion.”
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: Maybe there’s be better understanding if you’d refrain from the polemic and edited your writing. How would a normal reader interpret this sentence:
“One of the ethical principles of society is that withholding wages is a crime, because income is a special form of obligation, unlike other debts.”
I take it that you meant the exact opposite of what you wrote; something like failure to withhold (or pay) taxes is an ethic lapse.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think my sense was too remote from my words for a normal reader to figure it out, unless the reader didn’t know that failure to pay wages was a crime. “Witholding wages” is not “witholding taxes.” In any case, sorry for making you work to figure out my meaning. I’ve explained exactly what I meant, so readers should not still be confused, three or four posts later.
Report comment to moderator
Conan-I’M working people. My parents are retired working people. Everyone I KNOW is or was working people. Cut the crap. “Working people” and “union members” are NOT synonymous. Pretty much all the people supporting this bill among the general public are “working people.” I also note that you simply ignore or choose not to respond to the majority of my posts, instead picking one small item to nitpick. You really are unable to debate without resorting to left wing propaganda, aren’t you?
Report comment to moderator
My parents are retired working people. Everyone I KNOW is or was working people.
I assumed so. That’s why it’s all the more amazing that you buy into the propaganda that pits union working people against non-union working people.
I also note that you simply ignore or choose not to respond to the majority of my posts, instead picking one small item to nitpick.
That’s because your post was one long, angry screed against unions without much in the way of fact. And the gist of it is that since we can’t guarantee perfect fairness to everyone, one subgroup doesn’t deserve to have us even try.
I don’t have the ability to dissuade you of misinformed animus, so I left it alone.
In Wisconsin, the unions have agreed to every material concession the governor wants. The only thing they resist is giving up their right to bargain collectively on similar things in the future. Where is the greed and corruption in that?
And notice. bargaining is just that .. negotiating and reaching compromise. Unions rarely get everything they’d like, but by putting strength in numbers they do sometimes get more than the employer was at first willing to offer.
But as long as you’re ranting about “corruption” and “greed,” there’s not much hope of having a civil conversation.
Report comment to moderator
Greed is nonpartisan.
Report comment to moderator
Wagus: That’s true. But it’s also true that workers resisting losing their bargaining power is not something that can be shrugged off as “greed.”
Despite the misinformation about “overpaid” government workers, most of these people are struggling to make ends meet like everyone else. They’re willing to take what amounts to a pay cut that the governor has asked for. They’re not willing to surrender their right to speak up if sometime in the near future he comes back and wants them to take a much larger one.
I don’t think that’s greed, I think it’s rational self-interest.
Report comment to moderator
A news analyst from The Nation reports that Democrats could agree to provide a quorum for a vote on union busting, which they most likely would lose, provided that Republicans agree to separate the “budget repair” from collective bargaining in separate bills. Under such a deal, the Senate would vote immediately on the budget and three months later on a stand-alone bill to eliminate collective bargaining.
That sounds like a fair and reasonable compromise. Democrats would consent to a process for votes that Republicans could win. Of course, rabid Republicans can’t afford hearings about collective bargaining and they are terrified of forcing all Republicans to vote to bust unions in a stand-alone bill.
Republicans have no clothes.
Report comment to moderator
Buying time to mold opinion.
Report comment to moderator
That train has left the station, WAGUS, and it’s high-speed rail.
Opinion is already molded. Republicans are in damage control, maneuvering to defend some of their number against defeat in a recall or the next election.
They’re grasping for fig leaves because they’re naked.
Report comment to moderator
“Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”!
Quote is a little ancient, but AFAIC, still VERY applicable!!!!
Look out unions, the general public is finally getting fed up with your shennagins and are rebelling!! Get used to it.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: I’ll give you this – 41 is well written and great rhetoric. The high-speed rail and grasping for fig leaves gave me a chuckle.
Report comment to moderator
The wonderful aesthetic effect of my posts is the sugar coating for your moral instruction, WAGUS.
Report comment to moderator
Where is the bob-wire? The next thing I will hear our government saying we need are vacations behind wire fences with large and convenient showers! Unions need to be dismantled. America has exceded the Fascist and the Stalinist in our new invention of evil! The store I worked for closed. Only thing I got from Uncle SAM was hope you can make it! Greed is greed is greed!!!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
With the crocodile tears and whinning from the left it’s obvious the big picture is missed. The Repubs handsomely won in November to be responsible adults in public office and reign in reckless government spending, including excessive government employee costs.
The majority of the voters put these representatives into office to do what they said they would do. Unless these representatives are proposing legislation that violates their constitution what is the problem? The taxpayers are now being represented and a Marxist based political special interest group has lost its clout.
“Among the top five employers here are the county, the schools and the city. And that was enough to make Mr. Hahn, a man who has worked at unionized factories, a supporter of Gov. Scott Walker’s sweeping proposal to cut the benefits and collective-bargaining rights of public workers in Wisconsin, a plan that has set off a firestorm of debate and protests at the state Capitol. He says he still believes in unions, but thinks those in the public sector lead to wasteful spending because of what he sees as lavish benefits and endless negotiations.
“Something needs to be done,” he said, “and quickly.”
Across Wisconsin, residents like Mr. Hahn have fumed in recent years as tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have vanished, and as some of the state’s best-known corporations have pressured workers to accept benefit cuts.
Wisconsin’s financial problems are not as dire as those of many other states. But a simmering resentment over those lost jobs and lost benefits in private industry — combined with the state’s history of highly polarized politics — may explain why Wisconsin, once a pioneer in supporting organized labor, has set off a debate that is spreading to other states over public workers, unions and budget woes.”
Report comment to moderator
With the crocodile tears and whinning from the left it’s obvious the big picture is missed. The Repubs handsomely won in November to be responsible adults in public office and reign in reckless government spending, including excessive government employee costs.
The majority of the voters put these representatives into office to do what they said they would do. Unless these representatives are proposing legislation that violates their constitution what is the problem? The taxpayers are now being represented and a Marxist based political special interest group has lost its clout.
“Among the top five employers here are the county, the schools and the city. And that was enough to make Mr. Hahn, a man who has worked at unionized factories, a supporter of Gov. Scott Walker’s sweeping proposal to cut the benefits and collective-bargaining rights of public workers in Wisconsin, a plan that has set off a firestorm of debate and protests at the state Capitol. He says he still believes in unions, but thinks those in the public sector lead to wasteful spending because of what he sees as lavish benefits and endless negotiations.
“Something needs to be done,” he said, “and quickly.”
Across Wisconsin, residents like Mr. Hahn have fumed in recent years as tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have vanished, and as some of the state’s best-known corporations have pressured workers to accept benefit cuts.
Wisconsin’s financial problems are not as dire as those of many other states. But a simmering resentment over those lost jobs and lost benefits in private industry — combined with the state’s history of highly polarized politics — may explain why Wisconsin, once a pioneer in supporting organized labor, has set off a debate that is spreading to other states over public workers, unions and budget woes.”
Report comment to moderator
There’s nothing wrong with debate. Let it go on. How about three months of legislative hearings about the pros and cons of collective bargaining for public employees, and then lets have a stand-alone vote on union busting.
Unions and leftists are thrilled whenever debate is touched off by a college dropout anti-abortion activist turned governor. Let’s have such debates from now until nov. 2012, when a completely different set of voters will have their say.
Besides which, the 2012 voters have already cooled down. They’re 40% less angry at govt. With nothing positive to focus their energies, the tea party will be broken down steam toys by 2012.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose that is why 12 of your thrill seekers went AWOL??? To run away from debate??
Report comment to moderator
How about matching the tax-pain with the benefits. Let’s raise all taxes now, proportionately, to pay off all debts in 30 years. Maybe we’d see some reasonableness next November.
Report comment to moderator
Now WAGUS, that is unfair. We’d be dealing with reality rather than Marxist myths. What fun would that be?
Report comment to moderator
#41 Scroop Moth
“That train has left the station, WAGUS, and it’s high-speed rail.”
I know of no trains within 70 miles of my house. It will take a while for that high-speed rail to get here.
Report comment to moderator
I know of no trains within 70 miles of my house. It will take a while for that high-speed rail to get here.
Not as long as you think though, because it is high-speed.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, Here are a couple of questions for you:
1. Do you believe in equal pay for equal work? If so, then why do you argue that public sector workers deserve more than their private sector counterparts?
2. Many of your arguments come across as assuming that rich = evil and so you keep making the point that union workers aren’t rich and therefore are not evil and therefore must be on the right side of the argument. Why do you presume that the amount of wealth someone has determines whether they deserve it or not?
Actually, we already know the answer to the second question. Modern liberalism declares that too much wealth is undeserved regardless of how it was obtained. And too little wealth makes someone deserving of more even if they haven’t earned it. Can’t you see that your definition of fairness is inherently unfair?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Try asking me some questions based on what I actually have argued and I’ll answer. Both of the two above are based on false premises.
If so, then why do you argue that public sector workers deserve more than their private sector counterparts?
I have said no such thing.
Why do you presume that the amount of wealth someone has determines whether they deserve it or not?
I don’t. And nothing I’ve said should suggest that I think that. However …
Actually, we already know the answer to the second question. Modern liberalism declares that too much wealth is undeserved regardless of how it was obtained. And too little wealth makes someone deserving of more even if they haven’t earned it.
Apparently, everything you (think you) know about liberalism you learned from conservatives. This is a gross caricature and I’m not going to be lured into trying to defend myself against challenges based on such distortions.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, In #3 you said, “The problem with Innes’ argument is that government workers are NOT rich…” as if that implies something. What does it imply?
Based on your arguments here for weeks, I assumed it implied that because they are “not rich” according to you they are ENTITLED to the wages they get. Whereas if they were RICH (whatever that means) then you’d be willing to have them take a reasonable wage.
You continue with “…and are not, by and large, paid any more than private-sector counterparts.”
This is patently FALSE. Wisconsin union workers earn 25% more than their private counterparts for the same work.
Given that you do support the higher union wages and benefits could you please answer question #1 again?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Conan, In #3 you said, “The problem with Innes’ argument is that government workers are NOT rich…” as if that implies something. What does it imply?
Based on your arguments here for weeks, I assumed it implied that because they are “not rich” according to you they are ENTITLED to the wages they get. Whereas if they were RICH (whatever that means) then you’d be willing to have them take a reasonable wage.
No, it just means that Innes attempts to portray them as somehow overpaid compared to their private sector counterparts is invalid. There is a concerted effort to convince us that government workers are lazy and overpaid and therefore us taxpayers should view them with anger and resentment. It’s a shameful effort to pit worker against worker that is being inexplicably effective.
And your link is an example of the kind of shoddy information being used to make the argument. It consists of a bald assertion of the claim, accompanied by a couple of TC screen caps of slides showing “average wages” of state, local and private sector employees with (contrary to your description) no information to show whether they’re the “same work” or not. If they’re comparing government lawyers to private-sector grocery store clerks, of course there’s a disparity.
As for you last line, I refuse to have my positions assigned to me and I will not answer challenges made on that basis.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know what the “TC” in the above post was supposed to be. Disregard it.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Innes actually doesn’t attempt to portrary….the union backed state employees are overpaid compared to private industry counterparts and even the local government employees. They do get, compared to private industry, next to guaranteed for life jobs and generous pensions and benefits.
We’ve had this discussion before and reviewed the Heritage Foundation report about union backed federal civil servants, their lavious defined benefits pensions, topped with their defined contributions plan, etc.
As a tax preparer I know the federal and state employees and retirees are making greater amounts of money compared to their counterparts.
I also know our governments are broke by overspending, mainly on wages and personnel costs.
So we are back to reality….how to fix the government overspending?
It truly is not worker against worker….it is taxpayer pitted against government bloat and the unions that have helped that bloat grow.
Government is a wealth draining parasite. Small government is a beneficial and necessary parasite; our big, socialist governments we have today have become toxic parasites.
What is your solution to solving the financial mess? Putting necessary controls on union backed civil servants is only one of the necessary measures to restore finanical sanity.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: It’s all mythology.
People say “You can’t fire unionized government workers, they have jobs for life.” Given that Walker is about to fire 1,500 in Wisconsin, that’s obviously not true. In 2009, federal agencies fired a total of more than 11,000 employees for poor performance or misconduct.
Unions work to protect workers who are vulnerable against being terminated capriciously, but there is nothing that prevents government agencies from firing those who truly need to go.
Pension systems vary from state to state, but by and large taxpayers do NOT pay the pensions. A retirement board takes a portion of the employees’ total compensation and invests it. The pension comes out of the return on the investment. The taxpayers are paying in on the front end, as they are paying the employees, but the money that comes out on the back end is investment return.
My question for you is: If government workers truly are better paid on an apples-to-apples comparison, why is the default position to tear them down rather than to try to raise the private sector up?
You might find this enlightening. It’s 5 myths about federal workers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303160.html
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
what myths? I said almost guaranteed. Compared to the private industry counterpart, this is true. The WP report, as I recall, was produced by the union and demonstrated to be a sham. The Heritage Report was much more honest in its approach.
The pension systems do vary, but the taxpayers are always contributing to them whether the employ has to or not.
Reality check. The folks that come in for their taxes demonstrates to me on a local scale that government employees are paid greater than their non-government counterpart and the pension system is extremely generous for the former government employee; whether federal or state. We get a lot of snowbirds here and I see what retired teachers get from MN and WI.
you ask: If government workers truly are better paid on an apples-to-apples comparison, why is the default position to tear them down rather than to try to raise the private sector up?
Got to do another reality check again. Where does the money that isn’t there come from? Companies are either laying off workers and/or cutting their pay. Spreading the wealth from the fat-cat bonuses won’t even come close. How many more jobs get sent to lower paying countries when wages are raised?
Scott Walker is working in the world of reality. 1,500 reduction from the parasitic bloat is a great start.
If this upsets you, then I ask again: What is your solution to solving the financial insanity of big government? Putting necessary controls on union backed civil servants is only one of the necessary measures to restore finanical sanity. Please, I’d like to hear what you have to say about the near bankruptcies of the states.
“Other Governors are fast coming to the realization that Scott Walker’s approach makes imminent good sense. Ohio Governor John Kasich, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, and Florida Governor Robert McDonnell have either endorsed legislation to replicate Scott Walker’s plan in their states or are advocating reductions in public employee pay and/or benefits to help reduce ballooning state budget shortfalls. The Pew Center estimated last year that there is a $1 trillion gap between what the states presently owe public employees in salary and benefits and what the states have available to meet those obligations. Unless public employee pensions, health benefits, and retirement pay are curtailed that gap will continue to grow by hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Sooner or later states that do not cut back will become bankrupt.
The 2010 elections swept into office Republican Governors and legislatures across the mid-west, including in the states of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The showdown with public employees is an inevitable one for the realists now in office who refuse to ignore ballooning state debts. The governments of these states are in dire straits financially and cannot hope to overcome debt without cutting back on public employment and reducing the skyrocketing costs of pay and benefits to public employees. The revenues coming into states have fallen dramatically as those in the private sector responsible for paying taxes have experienced income reductions. At the same time, federal mandates on the states have grown and will continue to grow under, among other new federal demands on the states, Obamacare.”
Report comment to moderator
This is another issue that causes government to crash into the wall of reality:
Labor Growth in New Jersey
Let’s examine the growth one of the states, using New Jersey as an example. The period from December 2000 to July 2004 is a good period to examine because the economy was going through a period of contraction due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the dot.com bubble bursting, the Y2K employment charade, problems in the stock market, and other factors.
Employment Category Number of Jobs
Private Jobs -31,300
Government Jobs: 48,200
Federal Government -400
State Government 12,000
Local Government (including education) 35,200
TOTAL 16,900
New Jersey Employment Statistics December 2000 – July 2004
According to the New Jersey Department of Labor, during that nearly 4 year period, the private sector, which employs over 4 million workers, eliminated over 31 thousand jobs, while the state and local governments added over 48 thousand jobs with about one-half of that in education. This is just one minor example of the unjustifiable expansion of government while the constituents of the state were struggling to survive. Does government ever reduce the head count? I cannot remember one instance where I’ve read about that circumstance.
Report comment to moderator
The pension systems do vary, but the taxpayers are always contributing to them whether the employ has to or not.
It’s all taxpayer money. What difference does it make if some goes directly into the pension fund vs. goes to the employee and then into the pension fund? The net cost to taxpayers is the same.
Look, when you call a plumber to your house and he hands you a bill for $300 to replace some broken pipes, do you get all resentful about it being YOUR MONEY he’s demanding? No, you hired him to perform a service, he performed it, and you pay him what he asks.
Government employees provide services. They pick up your trash and repair potholes and round up stray animals and drive children to and from schools and arrest criminals and protect natural resources and manage libraries and do a whole host of other things that are for the common good — and because they are for the common good they’re not readily billed to individuals. The cost is borne by the while community in the form of taxes.
If there are abuses, reform them. But this whole campaign of stirring up hate and resentment toward public employees (”parasitic bloat?”) is ridiculous and offensive.
Report comment to moderator
Great. I’ll grant communcal funding of common infrastructure, defense, and perhaps education, reluctantly. But what’s the criteria for common good? Good as defined by the majority? Is that the majority consisting of the 60% of the electorate who pays little or no taxes?
Report comment to moderator
Good as defined as things that benefit a community. And why would any sane person support education only “reluctantly?” (I realize there is an assumption in that question.)
And the elected representatives are to speak for their constituents when debates come up about what that includes.
I’m all for vigorous debate on controversial expenditures, just so you know. But I really, really hate the vitriol being directed at government employees, most of whom are honest hardworking people who provide real benefits to those of us who pay their salaries.
Like I said, if there are abuses to be ended, by all means let’s end them. But either we have to pay some people to work for the government (that is, work for us) to do things we need done, or we go without having them done. And most things government does, especially at the state and local levels, are things few of us would want to do without.
RWHawk: If this upsets you, then I ask again: What is your solution to solving the financial insanity of big government? Putting necessary controls on union backed civil servants is only one of the necessary measures to restore finanical sanity. Please, I’d like to hear what you have to say about the near bankruptcies of the states.
1. Don’t give tax breaks to the wealthy and then demand more from the middle class during a fiscal crisis.
2. Limit the retirement benefits of government employees to what their invested savings earn (no guaranteed benefits with taxpayers making up the difference.)
3. Examine budgets and cut judiciously where possible to increase efficiency without losing needed services.
4. Make a priority of paying for aid for the poor that is specifically designed to allow them to get education and training to move into the workforce and off of aid altogether within a short time (2-4 years). (Yes, this is a matter of spending money to save money, but long term you spend less if what you spend it on is paving the way to stop spending it altogether. And once you get one generation off of welfare and into work, the cycle is broken and children coming up have better role models and work ethic.)
5. Stop scapegoating the working class for problems they didn’t create, because that only builds resentment. (That doesn’t directly contribute to fiscal health but it does avoid chipping away and morale and dedication that can lessen productivity, so it does contribute indirectly.)
There’s probably more. That’s off the top of my head.
Report comment to moderator
Fairly good points, although I’d proscribe all scapegoating; middle class or Wall Street barons.
Report comment to moderator
I’d make point 3 a little stronger: Cut judiciously where possible, rationalize services, and raise taxes across the board to bridge the gap. We need to feel the immediate pain of our votes.
Report comment to moderator
Wagus: I actually agree completely with 66 and 67.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Sounds all nice but your rhetoric is partially based on myth.
The parasitic bloat is excessive, progressive government; cost of both employees and programs. Many programs and the civil servant force to enact them are working well beyond the limits of the state and fed constitutions. This bloat needs to be removed to help restore fiscal sanity.
I would suggest we begin by paring back government programs that are not enumerated in the constitution; starve the deadly,toxic parasite back to its necessary, beneficial level. This is what the Repubs talk about doing; I hope they can succeed before the parasite kills the nation.
I would imagine what you consider ‘judicious cutting’ from a Marxist standpoint will still leave a deadly parasite thriving and working working well beyond its constitutional limits. The battles going on right now are based on disputes between what ‘judicious cutting’ means between Marxists and constitutionalists. The most important thing in these debates is to carefully define terms. ‘Common good’ is another very sloppy term when two diametrically opposed worldviews are at stake.
The ‘tax break for the wealthy’ is a flat out canard. Look at reality. 50% don’t even pay income taxes. Many of these actually rake in up to $8,500 of tax credits in their refunds with CTC and EITC…a hidden welfare system that is such a farce. Suggest you review this site and understand reality rather than the Obama/Alinsky rhetoric: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Your point 4 has good consideration, but the education part needs to be removed as this is not enumerated in the constitution. In addition, governemnt education is extremely wasteful compared to its private enterprise counterpart. I’d fully elimiate the DOE.
Your point 5 draws an inaccurate conclusion. The working class is not being scapegoated. The public employees unions are targeted for demanding excesses and the socialistic government excesses are targeted, not the workers.
What would you do as far as the cozy corporatist environment our Pols thrive in? Your myths may point to the Repubs for this but it is both parties that cater to the big corporations at taxpayers expense. The Dems usually get more campaign money from them, go figure.
Would you propose we eliminate the Federal Reserve and go back to the constitutional provisions for coining money? The Fed is another corporatist enterprise that is intentionally inflating the money; a tremendous hidden tax that is hurting the poor the most and descimating the middle class. Our pols are letting the Fed getaway with QE 2 and some economists are now thinking about QE 3 and QE 4 as QE 1 failed and QE 2 is projected to fail. Zimbabwe here we come.
You neglected to mention Socialist Security and Mediscare; the most costly Ponzi programs next to welfare. They are actually bankrupt when we look at the near term trend. What do you suggest we do with these programs and those that were promised the socialist lies?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!