Saturday, March 12, 2011

Wisconsin Has Done It: Restricted Collective Bargaining. But What's That Mean?

Wisconsin has done it - Governor Scott Walker signed into law historic legislation today that essentially removes most collective bargaining privileges for most public employees in Wisconsin.

Couple things in that sentence above that I want to draw your attention to... first of all, the new law removes most collective bargaining, not all. I can't tell you how many news headlines say something to the effect of "Walker Ends Union Rights" or "Walker has Busted the Unions." Here's one example from the over-the-top liberal newspaper, the Wisconsin Rapids Tribune. He did not "end union rights" - if you think he did, move to a state like Texas, and you'll see a big difference between the public unions in Texas and the public unions in Wisconsin, even after this new law.

Secondly, note the word "privileges" - most people call it "collective bargaining rights" - what rights? The only collective bargaining rights that exist in America are those in the private sector. Every private sector employee in the United States of America has a true right to collective bargaining, as provided by the National Labor Relations Act from the 1930s. However, when we start talking about the public sector, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. As you probably know (at least you would if you read about the Heartless Wisconsin Governor), not all public employees even have collective bargaining at all. For example, in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, there is absolutely no collective bargaining in the public sector - period.

Thirdly, I said "most public employees" -- local police, fire, and state troopers are not affected by these changes.

Something else I've heard a lot of... "Walker Hates the Middle Class!" Oh yeah, like the "middle class" is made up entirely of public employees; let's just ignore the other millions of people in the "middle class" that work in the private sector, who will not be affected by this new law. Don't sit there and tell me "Walker's against the Middle Class/Working Class" when all he's doing is restricting the privileges for what can be negotiated for a very small part of the working class (public employees are probably between 35 and 40% of the middle class).

Here's the underlying major problem with all of this... Collective Bargaining in the public sector does not work. It doesn't. Period. Why? In order to answer this question, we have to understand exactly what are the purpose(s) & objective(s) of collective bargaining, and how they are accomplished. Collective bargaining is when a group of employees "unite" (form a union) to negotiate with the employer together. "There's safety in numbers." It's a very practical set-up.

A union elects representatives to go sit down at the table with the employer, and negotiate a contract (pay, benefits, working conditions, etc) on behalf of the entire union. The workers' union has its goals (more pay, better benefits, likable working conditions, etc), while the employer has goals of its own (keep costs as low as possible, whatever that might entail). In a perfectly balanced equation, the two party's are "polar opposites," and they sit down together at this table to find a middle point -- it's a compromise. Now let's look at an example...

If my 12 employees decide to form a union, and wish to collectively bargain with me, their employer (a private-industry company), there are certain limitations to that bargaining. For example, as an employer, I cannot realistically bargain and agree to add $1,000 per month towards each of their compensation packages ($12,000/mo), when my average net income is only about $10,000 per month. If I did, my business would lose $2,000 every month, and we'd be out of business within a year. No matter how badly the union wanted it, or how long they wanted to strike, as an employer, I simply cannot afford them that benefit -- it's not possible. That's how it works everywhere in the private sector. The company and the union bargain, and things certainly change (either in favor of the union or the company, depending on the variables), but no matter what, there are limits as to what the company can give the union, regardless of how hard the union fights. That's how it works everywhere... in the private sector.

In the public sector, however, it's a different ballgame. The employer is no longer a private company (like in the example above), but the government (whether local, state, or federal). When the government's playing the role of 'employer,' things change, because who's sitting across the table from the union? In my example above, it would be me, the business owner. I have a personal interest in my own business, and that's why no matter what, I'm not going to allow my employees to take that extra $1,000 per month in compensation, because that would drive me out of business. But when it's the government, it's not someone who has a personal interest sitting across from the union - it's an elected official: a politician. And what do we know about all politicians? They want to get... re-elected. Right? For many politicians, everything they do centers around one simple question: "How do I get re-elected?" And part of the answer, no matter who you are, involves getting financial contributions to use in your campaign. What's the largest contributor to, say, political candidates of the democrat party? Public unions. So who never want to upset those public workers? Democrats. And rightfully so - that's where a lot of their money comes from!

So why is all this relevant? Why is this a problem? Because there are many politicians who are willing to give the unions what they want, with no real consideration of what they can afford to give, because they know that if they do, that union will continue to contribute to his/her political campaign. And that is the reality of all this.

The democrat party and public employee unions depend on each other. The unions are strong when democrats are elected into power, because (chances are) the democrat received lots of funding from the union, and is now "paying them back," both as a thank-you, but also to keep the union's support, so that when they are up for re-election... you get the picture.

So the major problem with collective bargaining in the public sector is that instead of sitting across the table, with two different interests, and two different goals, they are actually on the same side of the table, with the same goal. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." When unions get too powerful, the inevitable result is a state that's not governed by the people, but by the unions. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I believe is happening all over the country, especially in Wisconsin.

Something else that Walker has done in Wisconsin along these same lines is he's cutting state aid to school districts throughout the state as part of his budget. Now these two things work hand in hand, the collective bargaining changes, as well as cutting the state aid. The state is in a massive financial crisis, and Walker's solution has two parts. First, you reign in the power of the unions. Then, you cut the amount of money the state is going to give to local governments. Why are both aspects important? Because by cutting state aid, he is essentially forcing the local governments to realize they don't have an unlimited supply of money to share with these public employees, like they feel like they've had in the past (think about that example from earlier with me as the business owner). By realizing they have finite financial resources, they MUST reign in the unions. However, history has shown that just telling localities to "do it" doesn't necessarily get the job done. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Wisconsin is being controlled by these unions, so even if there's no money, the politicians will STILL give the unions just about whatever they want, and the state will eventually be responsible for funding those bad deals. So what's the second part from Scott Walker? Remove the collective bargaining privileges that allow the union to make these demands that are driving the state (and local governments) towards bankruptcy.

Scott Walker is tying their hands, and he's a genius in how he's doing it. Both parts are necessary in order for it to be successful.

Don't believe me? I can imagine SO MANY of you reading this, probably thinking, "The politicians are controlled by unions? Is this really about the budget at all?" If you're still doubting me, take a look at local governments across the state of Wisconsin. People say the 14 democrat senators were staying away "to give people time to read and understand the bill" and to "stick up for the protesters" - bull! They were staying away to give these local governments and unions time to pass new contracts BEFORE the collective bargaining changes passed, so their contracts could be exempt from that! If that's not proof of what I'm telling you, I don't know what is! There is really only one of two possibilities here. One, these local governments are sticking up for the unions (remember the analogy... they are sitting next to the unions instead of sitting ACROSS from them), which means the entire purpose of collective bargaining has failed, or two, the government officials who are entering these new contracts with the workers are just too stupid to realize what they're doing. Some of these cities signed contracts with their unions through 2013! Why else would they do that? If they've been fighting since 2009, unable to sign a contract, which many of them have, why would they do it NOW, right before this bill passes, taking away A LOT of what the employees get? Why would they do that, KNOWING that the locality is going to suffer major decreases in state aid based on the state budget? How can these localities promise teachers, for example, all these benefits through 2013, when they don't even know what the state is giving them aid-wise, because the budget for the next fiscal year hasn't even been passed yet?!? Does this make sense to ANY of you? Why else would they do this? These cities are no-doubt screwing themselves on this one, and nobody seems to care! What is wrong with this?

Here's a story on teacher unions all across the state hurrying to get their contracts signed before the new law takes effect.

Once this whole thing blows over, people will see the world has not come to an end, and Wisconsin will slowly start to recover from years of poor government-spending habits.

Now, wait and see what happens during the next state election cycle. The next time we see democrats campaigning, we all know they will remind us of this day when the republicans "ignored" the public employee protests -- we all know that will be part of their political advertisements. However, something else I think they will try to make everyone believe is that local school districts are left in financial ruin because of "Governor Walker's devastating state budget," when in reality, those of us informed people know the REAL reason those school districts are broke: because they refused to reign in the unions when Gov. Walker gave them the ability to do so. Instead, those school districts CHOSE to make the STUPIDEST decision possible and enter contracts through 2013, despite the fact that they KNEW about losing state aid, and they KNEW that within a short time, unions would have more restrictions on what they could bargain for. But, you watch - the democrats will lie and blame Scott Walker, saying that the school districts are in financial ruin because of his devastating budget - I know it already.

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment