Article: Walker wins recall race over Barrett
I am generally happy that Scott Walker won this week's recall election in Wisconsin. Walker campaigned on a platform promising financial reforms and he has kept those promises. He has taken on Union corruption, and has succeeded in reducing the state's deficit. The current budget deficit is expected to be completely eliminated by 2013 because of his efforts.
Unions have rallied their memberships against Walker. He has made some changes to the benefits packages of state workers, bringing them more in line with the private sector. He has also changed regulations allowing local governments to shop out benefits packages resulting in a great reduction in cost. Unfortunately for the unions, these changes have significantly reduced their control of state dollars, limiting their political strength.
The struggle in Wisconsin was never about workers' rights or government overreach. It has, all along, been about power. Union bosses had it and didn't want to give it up. Walker took it from them. Why union members allow their union leadership to have such control over the society they live in is completely beyond me. Politicians are generally corrupt, but union bosses often take corruption to new levels.
What troubles me about this recall election is the amount of out-of-state money spent by the Republicans during the campaign. They outspent the Democrats more than 2 to 1, with most of the contributions coming from non-Wisconsin supporters. I don't like to see local elections influenced so heavily by non-local dollars.
On the other hand, Walker beat Barrett by roughly the same margin as the original election. It appears that the public has not changed it's opinion. Wisconsin really does want these reforms.
It's a mixed bag. For many state workers, they are underpaid, and accept that fact during good economic times. Only during the latest recession/depression, when the private sector economy dipped below the state-average pay, did the populace cry "cooshie government jobs!".
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm all for breaking corrupt unions, and frankly glad their power was diminished.
Rich, I'm sure the unions fought back with money. Are you SURE that the unions didnt have a lot of out-of-state dollars being funneled in through less-than-public channels?
Possibly, but Walker still out-spent Barrett more than 2 to 1, mostly with out of state dollars. Barrett got little or no money from the DNC. Clinton campaigned for him, but Obama only sent an endorsement. It was fairly national on both sides, but the Republicans definitely had more out of state support than the Democrats.
DeleteThough I can appreciate him following through with his campaign promises, I do have a problem with him wanting to abolishing collective bargaining and especially when it comes to public safety i.e police, fire and ems services. Unions have their problems, what organizations don't, but broadly tearing down a fair, reasonable, and most importantly, NEGOTIATED (usually with major concessions in economic declines) agreements, is not the way to go. I just hope the voters see the long term, it can take a quite awhile to get back what you give away, on both sides.
ReplyDeleteActually, Joe, while I support unions in general (grew up in a UAW and UPWU household,and have belonged to the UFWU and the AFL-CIO myself), I do not support collective bargaining for public sector jobs.
DeletePublic employees are represented on both sides of the table in a collective bargaining negotiation. The union rep one one side, their elected official on the other. There is no true adversarial relationship. there is an inherent conflict of interest.
JMO
Well you may have grown up in a UAW home, not sure who UPWU are but you obviously have never sat through a municipal negotiation if you think they are not "adversarial". Tell it to Flint Fire who are next to get squashed, then Saginaw and well its too late for Pontiac and they shoved it in the voters back side in Harper Woods, who said to keep Fire and Police separate, but the council did what they wanted instead, same in Allen Park and with a possible merger in Ferndale, Hazel Park, Madison Hgts, and Royal Oak threatened with pending layoffs to already understaffed houses. Maybe you should consider looking into this a little more.
ReplyDeleteJoe, why do you assume I'm ignorant just because I draw different conclusions?
DeleteOur government doesn't exist to provide jobs. Some public services are best provided by the government. Some are not. Elected officials will decide whether a service will be provided by government, or privatized through a survey of the available information, and through feedback provided by the voters. This is not a part of collective bargaining. What do the unions have to do with it? The unions don't define the public's needs. That's not their job.
By "adversarial", I'm not referring to heated debate. I'm talking about two parties with opposing interests negotiating a compromise. Union negotiations for public employees are not truly adversarial in nature when the employee is represented by both the union negotiator and the elected official. There is an inherent conflict of interest.
This conflict of interest is evidenced by the union dollars being used to affect elections as a negotiation tactic. Unions put pressure on elected officials to succumb to union demands or face loss of office. This is a form of de facto extortion that is ultimately paid for by the public. Private sector unions don't have this kind of leverage.
Joe: I had a message delivered from you to my email, but for some reason it hasn't appeared here on the blog, so I'll post it below:
Delete__________
joe thompson June 9, 2012 6:29 AM
Rich, you seem to get offended easily, which seems odd for a guy with a debate blog. The mere suggestion that you look into something a little more is not calling you ignorant, it just may mean you present yourself to not know all the facts.
The Gov. has been providing jobs since the Roosevelt administration at an alarming rate. Its created industries and regulation to support them. The employees for Public Safety didn't come first, the municipality did, If the elected officials were interested in garbage, fire, police and administration, the public had there say and they were/were not hired; sometimes with voter approved, specific mileages or bonds. You say it's not collective bargaining, really? PA 312 is what we have in Mich. and it was just reformed by the Gov and touted a victory for the taxpayers. What the Unions have to do with it is a fair wage, safety/security and professionalism. Needs? Do you know how many cops it takes to investigate a homicide or sexual assault?, how many firefighters it takes to put out a house fire? or ems prof. to manage a CPR properly? Do you think the gen. pub. does? The info is out there and people trust there officials and Prof. employees who do know. I wasn't talking heated debates either, I am a negotiator, I am in there. You make it sound as if the Mayor and council bring in a basket of cash and tell us "just take what you need". They are trying to save money just like anyone. Negotiated compromise? that's all it is!
Now conflict of interest. I don't assume you think this is just a Union issue. Elections are bought, won and lost by "Interests" whoever they are, whatever product, commodity, or service they sell, offer, or represent and the public pays everywhere.
Joe, there's an old saying:
Delete"If you can't convince them, confuse them".
In your posts so far, you have attacked my credibility, accused me of being over-sensitive, given an irreverent history lesson, and stressed your own credentials.
What you have not done is address the core issue.
Imagine this:
My sister is a caterer. I want her to cater my wedding. She asks her husband to negotiate the price. Whenever I try to talk her husband down on price, my sister hits me in the head and threatens that unless I stop haggling and agree with her husband, she will not cater the wedding. I tell her I'll go find another caterer. She replies that if I do that, she will not only boycott the wedding, but will disown me as her brother.
Is this a negotiation? Really? Seems a bit out of balance to me.