.
3/2/11, "American Taxpayers are the new NormanRae," BigGovernment.com, Dr. Susan Berry
"Our country has known a number of struggles and great debates that have further defined us as a nation. We are now in the midst of another one that, in the end, will determine whether taxpayers will continue to be enslaved by a political relationship between public union leaders and their elected representatives; one that guarantees entitlements for government workers and assurances of continued power for politicians and union leaders. This national debate began in Wisconsin and will likely be had from sea to shining sea.
- As we embark on this great debate, an understanding of some of the key points is critical because the private sector vs. public sector dispute will remain with us as a pivotal issue in the 2012 elections.
First, we need to know the difference between the private sector and public sector unions. Many liberal Democrats and public union leaders are dredging up old images of sweat shops and brutal treatment of humans by big business. As we are exposed to these representations, that serve to tug at our heartstrings, we recall the Hollywood glamorization of unions as noted in films such as Norma Rae, which emphasized the deplorable working conditions in private sector factories prior to workers banding together against employers, with the help of a union organizer.
Drawing on these images, some of the Wisconsin public sector union members, like many liberal ideologues who hope that an outpouring of emotional images- albeit without any basis in reality- will sway their audiences, are outrageously likening themselves to the people of Egypt and Libya who, of course, have been struggling to free themselves from oppressive dictators.
As Lisa Fabrizio suggests, contrast these images with what is the truth: that public sector union members, unlike the people of Egypt and Libya, have some of the largest salaries, benefits, and pension packages in the country- courtesy of American taxpayers who, in the private sector, are struggling with
- a likely far higher than 10% rate of unemployment.
Yes, the table has turned and public sector unions, many of whose members can retire at the ripe old age of 55, with six-figure pensions, are now the “big businesses” of the old sweat shops,
- while taxpayers are the new “Norma Raes.”
The corruption of the public unions was foretold by none other than one of the princes of big government himself, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who viewed the collective bargaining process applied to government workers as a clear conflict of interest, and referred to government workers’ striking against taxpayers as “unthinkable and intolerable.” Until 1959, when collective bargaining for government workers began in Wisconsin, even union leaders believed the process had no place in government, and that government workers had no rights above those of ordinary citizens. Apparently, the promise of
- millions of dollars in union dues as well as a level of power, never before thought possible, changed their view.
As for President Obama, he ignores the warnings of F.D.R., ordinarily one of his role models. Referring to Governor Walker’s proposal as “making it hard for public employees to collectively bargain” and an “assault on unions,” the President seems to forget that, in his neck of the woods, federal workers have limited collective bargaining rights, a fact that has allowed him to freeze federal workers’ pay for two years without input from the unions.
- Yet, he would criticize Governor Walker for wanting to do the same to rein in his state’s spending.
To understand further the destructiveness of collective bargaining in the public sector, we should consider that, in January of this year, the U.S. Department of Labor presented data which placed the rate of private sector union membership in the country at nearly 7%, down from more than 30% in the 1950’s,
- while public sector union membership was reported to be at slightly
- more than 36%.
Why the downturn in private sector unions? Thomas Cooley and Lee Ohanian report that the decline is due to the fact that unionization stifles competition, which leads to higher costs and, ultimately, job destruction. Once individuals, in manufacturing, for example, realized that, on their own, they would have more control over their own personal job opportunities and salaries, unionization lost its “glamor.”
The public sector unions’ fiscal success is due to the major difference between the two sectors:
- there is no risk of job loss, or no competition,
- for state and local government union workers.
When it is time for their salaries, benefits, and pensions to be renegotiated, their leaders sit across the collective bargaining table, often from the very government officials they helped to elect to office. The rules of government collective bargaining are such that taxpayers do not have the final say on public policy related to state workers’ pay and benefits- which they fund. Elected representatives negotiate spending and policy decisions with union leaders, and then send the tab to the taxpayers. The result of this process is that all public union workers are eligible for higher pay and better benefits- even those with poor work performance."
Yet, it appears that some American taxpayers may not understand the collective bargaining process. Consider that, recently, former Clinton advisor-turned-conservative, Dick Morris, conducted a poll which demonstrated that Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly support Governor Walker’s plan to have state employees pay more for their health insurance and to contribute more toward their pensions. Voters also support ending forced deduction of union dues from state employees’ paychecks, and limiting state workers’ salary hikes to the rate of inflation, unless approved by referendum. However, according to the poll, 41-54% of voters did not agree with the governor’s stance on limiting collective bargaining for wages and benefits,
- except when these negotiations prevented education reform.
This is a key exception, and emphasizes two points: first, that some voters may not actually understand voters would limit collective bargaining for teacher unions if this meant schools could have greater flexibility to modify tenure, pay teachers based on merit,
And this is exactly what Governor Walker hopes to do in Wisconsin. He has not told public unions that they cannot exist, but he has said that
- they can no longer have dominion over taxpayers,
- and parents who want the best education for their children."
Video from BigGovernment.com, posted on You Tube 2/11/11
.
No comments:
Post a Comment