Governor, Scott Walker, the heartless Republican from Wisconsin, has asked Public Employees to start chipping in towards their own health insurance policies. Greetings, my friends, I apologize it's been some time since I've updated you on modern issues in our nation.
Unless you've been living under a log for the last couple of weeks, you are no doubt aware (at least in part) of what's been going on in Madison, WI. "No - I don't live anywhere near Madison. I don't even live in WI!" This issue has received NATIONAL attention in the last few weeks. There's no reason you should have no clue about what's going on. Wake up, and learn how to flip on the TV once in a while, and watch something actually worth your time; by that I mean something other than MTV or ESPN.
In case you are part of the ignorant minority (or even part of the group that THINKS they know what's going on, but really doesn't), I'm going to give you a crash course on what's been going on. Why? So that you can make a semi-educated opinion, instead of just a "political opinion" (i.e. "I'm a democrat, so I'm against what Walker's doing," or "I'm a republican, so I support Walker's decisions"), or the "emotional opinion" (i.e. I'm a teacher/public employee, so I hate what Scott Walker is doing). So I'm going to first, do my best to educate you on some simple, but important, facts that are surrounding this issue. (That's right, for starters, I'm just going to give some FACTUAL information, not opinion or political. I'll share my interpretation later).
FACT #1: (if you think these are "just opinions," go back to school... if your teachers are still there): The state of Wisconsin is currently facing an estimated $3.3 billion deficit over the next two years. (some figures say 3.6, for our purposes, we'll just use 3.3... that's what I've heard more of). Now, sometimes "big numbers" get so big that they are just meaningless, and we don't realize how big it really is, so I'll illustrate that for you: $3,300,000,000 over two years; or, $137,500,000 every month (over 24 months). That's the equivalent of spending $188,356 EVERY HOUR of EVERY DAY, and bringing in absolutely NOTHING. That's like buying a new house every hour, every day, for 2 years straight, without ever bringing in a penny. Hopefully now the "$3.3 billion" figure has a little more meaning than just "some big number."
FACT #2: The proposed budget repair bill is estimated to save the state approximately $300 million over the same two year period. Granted, that's not a lot compared to the massive deficit, but it's the single-biggest saving that has been proposed and investigated. Sure, there might be something else we could do, but right now, THIS is the single most significant change we can make.
There are 4 main things the bill is proposing to change:
CHANGE #1: The bill will require state employees (police & fire exempt) to pay approximately 12.6% of the overall health insurance premium for the individual or family plan the employee is currently enrolled in. The government will continue to pay approximately 87.4% of the cost of these health insurance policies. The average Wisconsin state employee (prior to this bill) contributes closer to 6% of their health insurance policy. Therefore, their health care costs (on average) will double. Nationally, the average cost to the worker is around 27%, meaning on average, employers pay only 73% of the health insurance policy costs.
CHANGE #2: The bill will require state employees (police & fire exempt) to pay approximately 5% of their pay into their state pension fund. This will be an increase from the almost-nothing that state employees currently pay into their own retirement fund. That means the government (prior to this bill) pays nearly 100% towards state employees' retirement. The national average for government contributions to similar pension funds is approximately 83%. Under the new bill, the state of Wisconsin would decrease its payments into this pension from nearly 100% to around 94/95%, still 10% higher than the national average.
CHANGE #3: The bill will restrict collective bargaining rights (police & fire exempt) to wages only. According to Scott Walker and the GOP, removal of these rights will "give local governments the tools they need to balance their own budgets, making it easier for the state to balance its budget."
CHANGE #4: The bill will decrease the power of a union over its members, by making it illegal to force employees of a specific job to join a union and union dues, against their will. Instead of mandatory, union membership will be voluntary, and a decision that the worker can make. If they want, they can keep that extra $1,000/year (or so) in union dues in their own pocket, instead of automatically having that deducted and sent to the union. This will also require unions to be re-certified, ensuring there is still a proper majority in order for the union to continue to exist and operate.
Now here's some of my interpretations, and opinions on this matter.
The first thing I want to say is this: Asking people to contribute 5% to their OWN retirement, and 12% towards their own health care, when these are still very generous (comparably), is not a ridiculous request. People are calling Scott Walker and the GOP horrible, horrible things, when (at least this part of the bill) is not an unreasonable request. This is his solution to making sure we don't have to make cuts in employment. He spent like 15 years in Milwaukee County, constantly trying to find ways for people to keep their jobs. He has proven that he will do what's necessary to prevent people from losing their jobs. This bill proposes nothing in the area of job cuts. So, when the people get to keep their job, they shouldn't be complaining about these changes, when the alternative is losing their job.
The next thing to note is that this is exactly the thing Scott Walker campaigned on. If you are surprised by what Scott Walker is attempting to do here, you have been asleep for the last 15 years when he was the County Executive, and during his campaign. Unions have always been his enemy, and he has always believed and been open about his feelings that public unions are the biggest enemy to the taxpayer. If you are surprised by this, you are simply just waking up to Scott Walker: This is who he is. And for the most part, this is why he was elected, and that is why he is not negotiating. In his experience, you cannot do both: Balance a budget, and leave the unions in their reign of power. You cannot do both. For the longest time, we have allowed them to rule this state, and the people of Wisconsin have elected Scott Walker to make some changes. But, in the words of my friend, Pam Akey, it certainly shouldn't be impossible, because there should be accountability for the government to negotiate only what they can afford, and we should be able to both allow the unions bargaining power, and keep a balanced budget. It should work. Yes, in theory... it *should work* just fine. But, in theory, communism looks beautiful, too. Things that *should work* (in theory) don't always work on the practical level. Scott Walker is doing what he's doing because it's what the people of Wisconsin elected him to do. He was duly elected, with a fair, true majority of voter turnout. Same holds true for everyone in the State Assembly, and the State Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Now, I have heard time and again, from many different people, that "This is not about the money! If it were, then why are you busting the unions? The unions will accept the pay cuts and other things, just don't take away the collective bargaining rights! Separate the two issues! The unions are willing to make concessions on pay, if the collective bargaining remains in tact." I have heard this by many different people, including my own father, a veteran teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools system. This issue has hit home for me, because both my parents are teachers, as well as my sister. My father and sister disagree with me on this issue, so it has made it difficult for me to hold the position I do, seeing the argument first-hand from my close family.
Anyways, this claim of "accepting the pay cuts" is a bit naive, in my very humble opinion. First of all, there are over 1,000 different public employee unions in the state. There is no way that every single union has already agreed to these pay cuts. Some of the larger ones, perhaps, or the state-wide ones, but about all the little local ones? In the words of 620-WTMJ host Jeff Wagner, it's an "easy deal for many unions to get out of... 'I never made that agreement!'" Even if *most* of the unions did accept these concessions, how long would it be before we end up in the same fiscal mess we're in now? Everyone knows unions won't give up on fighting for better benefits, so it's only a matter of time before we end up in the same mess we're in now.
The Wall Street Journal has some interesting information on the history of collective bargaining in Milwaukee Public Schools. It says "the magic number is 74.2, for MPS." That's the number of cents the employer (district/government) pays in benefits to each employee per dollar of salary. The "benefits package" is equal to 74.2% of the salary. What's the average in the rest of WI that an employee benefits package will be? About 24.3%. Nearly three times more in benefits awarded to teachers in MPS. The article goes on to digest the number, explaining all the different benefits - feel free to check it out if you're interested, but I'm not going to bore everyone else with the nitty gritty details. The point of the article is in its conclusion: "What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective bargaining ... As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal to restrict collective bargaining to salaries - not benefits - seems entirely reasonable."
Now, to switch to a slightly different issue... What about these 14 Senators that just decided to take off? Are you kidding? Because something is happening in government that they don't like, they just leave? Is that fair at all? I live in the city of Milwaukee, and my state senator is Tim Carpenter, one of the democrats Missing in Action. When he (along with the rest) decided to flea to another state, my representation in the State Senate ceased to exist. And in my very humble opinion, he, along with the rest, should be fired for failing to do their job: representing me (and the rest of us) in the State Senate. You don't just put an illegal stop to democracy because you don't like what's happening. Doesn't work that way. They should be fired, and we should hold special elections to replace them. Flip the coin... what if the tables were turned, and when the Republicans in the US Congress were against health care reform, say, what if they all decided to flea Washington DC to halt future legislation? Would that be any different? NO! SAME THING! Their job is to be in Madison, and vote on legislation, and if they lose, move on to the next piece of legislation. That is your JOB.
OK, now in the course of discussing this with numerous people, I have encountered some common myths, and I want to spend a moment addressing (and correcting) five of them here:
1. It is a constitutional right for workers to collectively bargain!
No, you're an idiot, and you're wrong. No where in the constitution is there anything of the sort. Stop using big words and thinking you sound intelligent, because you are just plain wrong. It is most definitely not a constitutional right for workers to collectively bargain, at all.
2. There are federal laws preventing this sort of thing! Sure, it's not in the constitution, but there are federal laws that give rights for workers to collectively bargain! What Walker is doing is illegal, because federal law allows workers to collectively bargain!
Again, wrong. There is not one single federal law making it illegal to do what Scott Walker is doing. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (what most people cite when they say what Walker is proposing is illegal) relates to employees in the PRIVATE SECTOR. It leaves it up to STATES to decide how to handle collective bargaining within the public sector. Laws at the STATE level govern what issues are subject to bargaining. All Walker is doing is changing the allowed bargaining rights - he's not even removing them all together. There are 5 states - Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia - that prohibit collective bargaining by public employees - period. So, don't sit there and tell me this is "illegal" and "in violation of federal law" - the fact is, YOU are the one not aware of the true facts, if you think Walker's proposal is "illegal." Like I said before, go back to school... if your teachers are still there.
3. But, if we change these laws, things will go back to the way they were in the 30s with really crappy working conditions! After all, that was the purpose of unions: fixing working conditions so they were better for the employees. Now we want to remove them? That means we will go back to the way things used to be, with crappy working conditions, 12-hour work days, no vacation, etc. etc.! Why on earth would we want to do that?
The National Labor Relations Act (which deals with the private sector) was in response to these poor working conditions IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR (i.e. factories, etc). That is why the federal laws regarding collective bargaining relate directly to the private sector, never the public sector (at the state level). State employee bargaining rights are ALWAYS (and always have been) governed by the individual state, or non-existent in some states. Therefore, to suggest that we'll go back to the way things were in the 30s would mean overturning the NLRA, which is not even close to what this issue is about.
This one comes from my father:
4. We need the union. Without it, they could tell us, as teachers, that we have to work a 12-hour work day, or even come in on Saturdays without extra pay. The union is a good thing, and without it, there will be ridiculous demands on us, as teachers, demands which would not be fair.
That is a very irrational argument against what Walker is doing. While it theoretically could happen without a union, it also could theoretically happen WITH a union. A union *guarantees* nothing. In response to the irrationality, I would use the same irrational logic, saying that "with a union, it's possible to drain the state so much when public employees work 2 days a week for a full salary." Same logic. You can't argue against what Walker is doing by saying what "could" theoretically happen as a result. Any one of us could die in a fatal car accident - does that mean the rational person will never get into a vehicle? Secondly, keep in mind that not every single work place has unions or collective bargaining at all. It's extremely irrational to start any sentence with "we need a union, because without it ...." when only 11.9% of the working population in America are union members (2010 Bureau of Labor Statistics). The rest of us 88% not paying union dues are doing just fine without the help of da union. If the 88% "really isn't doing fine without a union," they'd unionize (at least, most of them would. The point is there is a HUGE majority, not just a small majority, like 55/45, that are not involved with unions).
5. So, his proposal involves all public employees in Wisconsin, except for fire and police personnel? Come on - if that's not a political move, I don't know what is. Those are the unions that supported him in the election, so of course he's going to reward them! I told you this is all political, and has nothing to do with money!
OK, excuse me if I get a little condescending in this paragraph, because this particular claim against Scott Walker is one that especially offends me, as a future police officer. There is nothing more annoying than an ignorant idiot that thinks he knows what's going on, and then he says something like this. Are you kidding me? Don't even speak on this matter anymore if you refuse to learn at least a little bit about what you're talking about. Do NOT think Scott Walker is exempting the police & fire unions because they supported him - you're an idiot who doesn't have his facts straight. Of the 314 fire & police unions in the state of Wisconsin, do you know how many supported Walker? If this claim of yours was right, it would have to be a huge majority, right? So, maybe like 200 at least? At least. Nope - not even close. FOUR. That's right, 4 out of 314. That's like 1%. Don't sit there and tell me (or anyone else) that this is a "political move" because those unions supported him, so he's protecting them. That's BS, and if you did a little research before talking, you wouldn't have sounded like a complete moron who doesn't even understand what's going on. OK, that's my rant on that issue... returning to civil discussion.
Truth of the matter...
As a whole, unions are self-serving bodies that do not care about the public, taxpayers, or the well-being of anyone else. When you abandon your classroom, walk off your job, and break the law, you are doing anything BUT setting a positive example for our children. Teachers are to be held to a moral standard, and are supposed to care about the well-being of others. If you are a teacher, and you protested in Madison, SHAME ON YOU for setting a very poor example for the people you are supposed to be teaching. You abandoned your students, screwed the parents who had to come up with another form of child care for the day, or call in the sick themselves, and for what? So you could protect your greedy pensions, health insurance, and privileges? (That's right - privileges, not rights). In the words of Mary Bell, the President of the Wisconsin Education Association Council (state teachers' union), "This is not about protecting our pay and our benefits. It is about protecting our rights to collectively bargain." Ah yes, Ms. Bell - *clears throat* - and what "rights" are those? As explained previously, you do not have any right to participate in collective bargaining. If you collectively bargain in the public sector, you are given a privilege, and that privilege is not a guarantee to last. It is the decision of the state whether or not you keep those privileges, or whether or not those privileges are restricted, revoked, etc. Just because you held a privilege at one time does not mean tough economic times will allow you to keep those exact same privileges. It doesn't work that way - sorry.
One of the reasons my father believes this is so unfair is because "these are all things we've fought for over the last 30 or 40 years, and now they're all going to be taken away. Is that fair?" Yes, dad - we, the over-taxed taxpayers (the ones who pay the bill) cannot afford at this time to continue paying for your over-generous, fat pensions and health insurance plans. We cannot afford it. "What part of 'broke' do you not understand?" "Well we'll take the pay cuts!" That's not the point - we cannot afford to have your union collectively bargain the way it has in the past, and get us in the same fiscal mess we are now in the next 30/40 years. It's not just about today, it's about tomorrow, next year, and in the year 2020, and beyond. The fact that you, as a union, "have bargained for something for the last 40 years" does not guarantee that it will always be there. Once again, this is not a right of yours, it's a revoke-able, or award-able privilege. I am so sick of the American "entitlement mentality." "I'm entitled to ______," "I have a right to ______" - no, you don't. This is the United States of America, not the United States of Entitlement, where you can work for 25 years, and have a 25+ year tax-funded retirement, of which you contributed almost nothing toward.
Welcome to the real world, where there is a sense of personal responsibility, personal accountability, and a bit of maturity. Oh, there's just one thing ... here in the real world, nothing's free.
Sources / Further Reading:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/22/6106569-do-public-employees-have-a-right-to-collective-bargaining
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166034245532792.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/21/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-has-a-choice-union-buster-or-real-l/
No comments:
Post a Comment