This Is Drivel

union

When the protests to the governor’s so-called budget repair bill began, my son asked me if I didn’t think it was only fair and right that the state workers share some of the sacrifice. His question frankly surprised the hell out of me because I really thought that, if he saw that this question tipped on the point of collective bargaining and not concessions of wages and benefits, he would be as naturally sympathetic to the workers as I was. Did he really think it didn’t?

Unfortunately, I never got around to asking him that question then. I tried to argue that, Sure, asking state workers to sacrifice would be all right if it was done fairly, but the governor wasn’t asking state workers to share the sacrifice, he was forcing it on them and taking away their collective bargaining rights besides. But I’m afraid I didn’t phrase my argument very well and it sort of came out like I was mad at him, so the conversation didn’t go much further than that.

Then last night, promising myself I’d give him all the time he wanted to explain his position, I asked him what he thought about unions.

“What do I think about them?” he said, looking for me to clarify the question.

“Yeah, do you think workers should be allowed to organize and bargain for their wages and benefits?”

“I think all workers should be required to organize,” was his totally amazing answer. “How else can employers interact with their workers in a way that’s respectful at all?”

Oh. I see. Well, okay.

Responses

  1. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    I was not making my point clearly.

    My point was this: I do think that it would be fair and reasonable for unionized government employees to give up concessional penalties to wages and benefits. However, I only think that this would be fair and reasonable if it was a necessity. I do not think that being a necessity means it would be the last thing to change, it means that if the government (be it local, state, or federal) were under such financial duress that it became necessary to cut back or eliminate funding for important social programs and public services – that is, if the state were enacting some sort of austerity measures as they have in places like Ireland and Portugal, where the government is truly and pathetically broke – it would then be necessary to ask concessions from government employees.

    This does not really apply to what’s happening here, though, because it is becoming more and more obvious each day that Walker’s budgetary wailing is a load of crap.

    My point was hypothetical.

    IF the state government were under severe financial pressure; IF that pressure forced the government to make drastic changes to the operation of public services; IF those changes negatively affected the population of the state, and the government were still unable to operate with a reasonable measure of financial stability; THEN it would be fair and right to ask for concessions in wages and benefits from state workers.

    I flatly disagree with any union-busting attempts. There is no reasonable or respectable motivation for that. I don’t see how my previous point connects at all with the union-busting, though, so your surprise surprises me. I don’t think we even touched on that before.

    Gosh, politics talk sure is fun.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Dave Avatar
      Dave

      Good point, sir, and again I salute you and your positions on both austerity and on unions. Well said.

      Like

      Reply
  2. The Seanster Avatar
    The Seanster

    Good analysis, Tim. Asking government employees to bear some greater financial burdens might be legitimate in a place like, say, California, where I’ve read that massive pension obligations have helped effectively bankrupt the whole state–but I sure don’t think that situation applies in Wisconsin, or Colorado…and it should certainly be an open negotiation (ie, the unions would maintain collective bargaining rights).

    On a slightly different but related note: I disagree with the practice of having automatic paycheck deductions for union dues, or of having “closed shops” in which one must be a member of a union in order to work. Just as everyone should have the freedom to join and support a union to defend their rights, everyone should also have the freedom NOT to join or support a union, and in fact should be able to form multiple different unions in one workplace if they should so choose…no monopolies for employers, and no monopolies for unions, either.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to The Seanster Cancel reply

photo of the author and the author's best friend