It’s become en vogue to bash public workers as spoiled layabouts with overly generous benefits who are out of touch with the hardships facing workers in the private sector. Wisconsin’s newly elected governor, Scott Walker, made a point of loudly criticizing public workers during the election. He and his Republican allies in the state legislature are now on the verge of passing one of the most sweeping pieces of anti-union legislation in recent memory. The bill would, among other things, strip unions of the right to collectively bargain wages and benefits. Opposition to the bill has sparked massive protests in Madison.
Full disclosure: I’m a unionized state worker as well. And I have good friends who are state workers and teachers in Wisconsin. They are smart, hard-working people who are in their chosen professions because of a desire to serve. It’s certainly not because of the money. Public workers can and will make sacrifices to help states balance their budgets. We’ve already made sacrifices in the form of frozen or cut wages and furloughs. But those sacrifices were negotiated then and they should be negotiated now. Walker may claim that he’s trying to create parity between the public and private sectors, but I doubt he and his allies have any plans to make life better for all workers. To strip unions of the basic right to negotiate has little to do with balancing the budget and everything to do with a desire to realize a Randian fantasy where employers are no longer confronted with irksome regulations that protect workers.
If the protests continue, Walker may have to make good on his promise to have the National Guard do the work of state employees. I’m sure they’re well-prepared to process Medicaid applications, inspect housing, and teach geometry.
Me and you and a road trip to Wisconsin. Solidarity!
To be fair, even FDR was against collective bargaining for *public* employees. It is kind of messed up:
1) The appointed government official making the agreements with the unions has nothing at stake- there is not a concern over the economics of the agreement that is comparable to a representative of a company that must make a profit in order to stay in business. It’s an un-even negotiation.
2) The elected government official not only has nothing fiduciary at stake: there is a blatant conflict of interest in that he is setting the salaries and benefits of his voters.
How do you reconcile these points?
The outrage over reducing public employee unions seems to be predicated on the fact that the employees need protection from a government who would otherwise take advantage of its employees.
(Otherwise, why all the fuss? Just make government employment like any other employment.)
I even saw a FB post that said: “Do you want to go back to the days when teachers were fired for getting married? Join the fight in Wisconsin!”
The thing I find really confusing about all this is that many of these same people who don’t trust the government with how it would treat its employees want to trust the government with everyone’s health care.
There is a disconnect there.
Hi Mark, Remember me? I was one of your fifth grade teachers many years ago. I am at a weekend get-away with several other retired teacher one of whom is Mrs. Callahan. We were discussing the good old days as retired teachers have a tendency to do. As it happens quite often for us teachers from Anne Sullivan, we thought of you. We wondered about you, and we looked you up. We are so proud of you, but I have to say that we expected no less. You were an exceptionally good student. I am writing this on Mrs. Callahan’s computer, and I’m sure that she would love to have a response from you. My e-mail address is penjank9@aol.com I would love to hear from you too. We definitely appreciate your comments on labor issues. In any event…good luck to you in all your endeavors. Janette Meverden