Abandoning Wisconsin's Unions

Wisconsin's public employee unions are being abandoned by the media. Not the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh media, instead liberals like Time Magazine's Joe Klein and The Washington Post's Charles Lane have dumped their support for the unions and their methods.

Klein kind of summed up the irony of the moments:

I mean, Isn't it, well, a bit ironic that the protesters in Madison, blocking the state senate chamber, are chanting "Freedom, Democracy, Union" while trying to prevent a vote?

After the Tuscon incident of only a few weeks ago we were all worried about civility in politics. Suddenly Madison has opened some left leaning journalists eyes, showing them their own group is as uncivil as any. John Jagler on Twitter points out that staffers at the capital in Madison have been told not to wear ties to work, evidently to avoid them being used to to assault them.

Lane points out the hypocrisy of the left coming out so quickly:

This is hypocrisy on an epic scale. I can't think of a more overwhelming refutation of the claim that incivility is the unique province of the American right -- as opposed to what it really is and always has been: a two-way street with both right and left lanes. No wonder so many Americans in the broad center of the political spectrum are turned off by both parties and their sanctimonious "bases."

Both at different points call out the Ed Schultz/Rachel Madow wing of the left for spewing false information, having it proven false, and refusing to acknowledge it.

President Obama, during the health care reform debate last year reminded us, as do Klein and Lane, elections have consequences. Though listening to the President this week you'd think he doesn't agree with that idea anymore; or at least the consequences when they aren't the one's he'd like.

The New York Times points out, it's not just Wisconsin going after public sector unions; though Walker is going farther than others. California and New York, led by liberal icons Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo are both attempting to reign in their unions lavish pay and benefits packages also, looking at 8 and 10% pay and benefit cuts. They didn't really mention Chris Christie in New Jersey, who's also gone after the pay and benefits packages, in a much more vocal way.

While the Times isn't quite as blunt as Klein and Lane, read the undercurrent of their article and you see little sympathy for the union's position.

Back to the President's (earlier) thought that elections have consequences. The whole reason Wisconsin flipped both chambers of their legislature and the Governor's office was simple, the people are tired of living in a tax hell. A big chunk of that hell is the personal income tax, which is still higher than neighboring Illinois' after a 66% increase in the Land of Lincoln.

The people saw that the only job growth in their state was in government employment, and realized it's an unsustainable model. Many probably looked at their neighbors to the south and saw that kind of dysfunction heading their way if something wasn't done, soon.

If more recent (than 2 months ago) evidence is needed, again, look to Illinois who did increase taxes considerably, but still has to borrow nearly $9 billion to pay it's past due bills because they didn't do anything about their spending when they jacked up taxes.

Read The Full Post!

The Union's Real Problem

Anyone watching the news in the last few days has seen the sleep ins, protests, and general unrest in Madison, Wisconsin.

The cause of the consternation is the "budget fix bill" proposed by the Governor, Scott Walker, that would require union members to pay 5.8% towards their retirement, and 12% (up from 6) of the cost of their health care premiums.

It would also restrict collective bargaining to wage packages only, other currently bargained items would fall under the same state laws (some of the most restrictive in the country) that non-represented employees are covered under.

If you spend a little time reading the articles, and especially the comments, in places like the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel you'll see many union members commenting that they'd be happy to bargain for those concessions, but not have them rammed down their throats.

I believe them, I think a good chunk would agree that they right now have a sweet deal that they can't justify to their friends in the private sector. At the same time, they don't want to lose their collective bargaining leverage on other issues, which I can't blame them for.

The problem is, it's not the rank and file pushing the issues, it's the union leadership, and frankly, they'd cave on the whole thing except for one small provision in the bill. That provision makes Wisconsin essentially a right to work state. It forbids the deduction of union dues from paychecks, and requires annual certification votes by members.

Once people start writing checks for due, it becomes personal. They start wondering what exactly they are getting for the money. When it happens unions generally fold, because workers doing their own cost-benefit analysis figure out they aren't getting much for that check.

They also don't like this because for years they failed to unionize many public employees. During the eight years of Jim Doyle's administration a number of laws were passed that took that choice from the workers, and put them in unions without a vote by anyone but a Democratic controlled state legislature.

How did they manage that? It was actually easy, just find a group of non-represented workers who work in an area with a union presence; the University system's admin and some support staff for example; and reclassify their positions into a group that's already represented. Voila! You suddenly have thousands of new dues paying members without needing a vote by the affected people.

So when you listen to the news reports about AWOL legislators, protesting teachers, and sick-outs, keep in mind that the rank and file union members probably aren't the biggest obstacle in Madison, the union leadership and their reduced funding is.

Read The Full Post!

Why Not Just Cut Taxes?

President Elect Obama has decided that the $175 billion "economic stimulus" he suggested during the campaign may not be enough to get the economy rolling again. So now, he's discussing a plan somewhere between $500 and $700 billion dollars. (GPO linked XL spread sheet. Cell BI)

To put this in perspective, that's between 40 and 60 percent of all personal income tax revenue estimated to be collected for FY 2008. If you do the low end of it, $500 billion, that would be every bit of tax income paid by the bottom 95% of tax payers; folks with an income under $153,000 in 2006. (Tax Foundation Table).

This begs the question, why not just eliminate the income tax on the lower 95% of the population for the next year or so? That seems to be the simple solution to getting that money out there. But there is are political reasons it won't be done.

Simply put, Mom and Pop feel better about getting a check from Uncle Sugar than they do about seeing their paycheck go up a few bucks. Over 40% of tax payers complain about their income tax, yet don't actually pay any. They see the money come out of their check, but then come April, get a refund with tax credits that is more than they paid in. They like that check, and seeing taxes deducted over the course of a year gives them something to bitch about, and politicians a way to claim the little guy is being screwed.

The second reason is that by cutting taxes directly, you aren't able to pay off the lobbies and interest groups that got you elected. If instead you send that $175 billion back to tax payers, and spend the other $325 billion on infrastructure projects, you can make a lot of folks in a lot of industries that invested in you happy.

For those not familiar with this method, it's known as the Chicago way. Our state leaders; the mentors of Barack Obama; have become the national experts at buying votes from interest groups with OPM (other peoples money). It was a trend started in Chicago (hence the name) to keep the Original Mayor Daley in power, and has spread to our state capital in a big way. Big enough to have the last Governor in prison and the current one under investigation by the feds.

If you think you need help from road builders, get a federal grant and spend a billion or so, spread among the 10 biggest, and redo every major freeway in Chicago, at once. Want help from health care providers, expand the state health care system to pay for just about anyone, then let the judges say it's illegal. It's how we do business here in Illinois.

President Obama would like to carry this quaint midwest tradition to the White House, deficit be damned. And, great for his union buddies, The Davis Bacon Act makes sure that all that infrastructure money gets funneled through them.

Yes, a tax cut would get the money back to the people in the most efficient manner, but let's not get confused here. The purpose of the economic stimulus expansion has much less to do with you, the tax payer getting something than it does with paying back political backers.

Read The Full Post!

Secret Ballots For Us, Not You!

Senate Democrats are waiting giddily for January, when they hold substantial majorities in Congress, and the White House to reintroduce their pet Card Check legislation, that removes the National Labor Relations Board requirement of secret ballots for unionization votes.

With the amount of money that the AFL-CIO, UAW, NEA and other unions poured into their campaign chests last cycle, it's at the top of the agenda.

The Wall Street Journal and LaborPains.org both point out the hypocrisy of Democrats when it comes to their own votes on committee chairs. Every committee will vote on their chairperson via a secret ballot, or already has.

Joe Lieberman retained his Homeland Security chairmanship after a secret ballot was taken by the committee to decide his fate. Henry Waxman wrested the top seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee from John Dingell; one of the longest serving chairman; on a secret ballot.

Why do they do this? Well, to protect themselves from flak both inside the capital, and outside. Lieberman has been a hated target of the Daily Kos/Huffington Post crowd for years, since he started getting vocal about the failings of his party and national security. Anyone on that committee that voted openly to retain a guy who supported John McCain over Barack Obama would get blasted by the far left blogging crowd.

Secondly, if Waxman or Lieberman knows for sure you voted against them that puts you pretty low on the ladder when it comes to ranking positions on their committees, and getting your legislation on the agenda. It also means they, who now hold some sway with the House at large can start usurping larger pet projects from you as payback.

One of the big jokes of this is that the guy who orchestrated Waxman's rise on the committee, as pointed out by the Journal; Rep. George Miller; is one of 10 Congressional Democrats to write a letter to Mexico a while back stating "We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose."

Evidently that's only important in Mexico, not the US. I'm sure if Mexican unions were contributing to the DNC he'd recant on that letter in a heartbeat.

Read The Full Post!

Democrats And Secret Ballots

Ah the irony of the Democratic Party. As the Wall Street Journal has on it's editorial page today, and earlier reported on Politico.Com, the Obama team was seriously considering a secret ballot and abbreviated roll call vote at the convention last week. The reason? Clinton supporters were complaining of intimidation on the floor by Obama supporters looking for a unanimous proclamation of Barack.

Then it struck them. One of the key items in the party platform, and legislative agenda, is to eliminate secret ballots in the workplace when it comes to forming unions. The party, and unions, deny that any intimidation goes on with "card checking" for membership, and want the rules changed to take a way the ability for management to ask for a secret vote.

Evidently someone in the party realized that having such a vote on the convention floor, then running on a platform of denying it in the workplace would make a pretty easy target for the GOP.

The whole incident shows once again that the Democratic Party isn't working for whats best for the people, but what's in the interest of their own special interest bankrollers.

Read The Full Post!

House Passes Bill to Raise Inflation, Unemployment

The bill I'm talking about, of course, is the "The Employee Free Choice Act", better known as the card check bill.

Under current labor law, if 30% or more of employees sign cards signifying a desire to join a union, employers may either recognize the union, or ask for a secret ballot on unionizing. Unfortunately for labor organizers, the vote generally comes out under 50%, and the union loses the ballot.

There is good reason for this, union's only tell one side of the story to employees when they are trying to organize them. Basically they promise them the "free lunch" theory. You'll get hire wages, better overtime, more benefits.

What they don't tell them is that companies have to make up that cost somewhere, and it generally comes in the form of layoffs of enough workers to make up the difference in costs.

They also let the workers know that seniority, not performance, will now determine your pay. So that 20 year guy that does as little as possible to stay out of trouble won't have to worry about a layoff, but the 3 year guy working his ass off will probably get cut when the time comes. Sorry, that's how union shops work.

For a great look at union's effects on workplaces, just look at how the Big 3, all UAW represented, are shedding workers, while Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and BMW, with non-union workplaces are adding them in the US.

The retail sector, with Wal-Mart and Target as two huge employers is one of the main targets of labor organizers in getting this bill through Congress. They see millions of potenial dues payers to their causes that they haven't been able to get organized by ballot. Card Check organizing of course allows them to either intimidate, or lie to employees about the paradise that is the union shop.

Before folks guffaw at the above paragraph, remember that a Democratic President and Congress passed the current labor law in the 1930's because of such union intimidation of employees who resisted organized labor.

Luckily enough Senators have promised a filibuster to keep it from getting through that chamber, and the President has promised a veto if it does make it to his desk.

Technorati Tags: Labor, Unions, Congress, Card Check, Veto, Filibuster

Read The Full Post!