Life Here & There 
No Comments Life in Wisconsin – Union Style
If you have been paying any attention to the news from the USA, Wisconsin is getting mentioned regarding the protests by unions and what Governor Walker is attempting to do. If you are one of my international readers, this is a momentous time in Wisconsin. We are finally something more than cheeseheads, that place north of Chicago, or the place with lots of snow and deer.
Enough with the humor part of this. I am employed in both the public and the private sector, so I am quite familiar with both. In my college job, I had a choice of either joining the union (WEAC or the Wis.branch of the NEA) or not. However, it really wasn’t a choice. The union was going to be taking union dues from my paycheck whether I was in the union or not. It didn’t matter whether or not I supported them or wanted to join. They were going to take my money. I had no say in the matter.
So what is the real issue of what is going on now? You will hear a lot of stuff that is merely political garbage trying to make the other side look bad. No, the Governor is not a tyrant or dictator. What he is doing is no surprise as he said he would when he campaigned. He won the election and is doing what he was elected to do. On the other side, the unions are willing to agree to the financial terms but do not want to give up their collective bargaining rights.
As for almost all of the other claims, they are bogus and inflammatory political garbage. The doctors writing sick notes is true but they will be likely facing medical fraud charges and may lose their licenses to practice. Most of the crowd of protestors are not state employees but a portion are teachers and many more are paid to be there or bussed in. Also, the changes are for all state employees whether they be a legislator, union, or non-union.
So what is the big issue with collective bargaining rights? Why is that issue creating such heat in Wisconsin during a weekend of a blizzard? (I’m snowed in today.)
To answer that, one must understand that public unions and private unions are two very different things. In the private sector, the union that represents the employees negotiates with management. Management of a business is limited in its resources based on market trends, competition, profit margin, and responsibility to shareholders. If they give up too much to the workforce, they will no longer be able to compete and will go out of business. (GM should have but was bailed out by the government.)
The public unions represent the employees but you have to look at who they are negotiating with. There is no true management. They are all employees. There is no profit margin, no competition, no market trends, and no shareholders to be responsible too. At most, they deal with politicians but those who fund their paychecks are the taxpayers. If the politicians do not act in good faith on behalf of the taxpayer, then no one is representing the taxpayer. There is no balance.
Further, it is well known that the union dues forcibly removed from my paycheck are given to the politicians who are in favor of the unions. They use that money to get re-elected (and keep getting paid by the taxpayers) and in turn vote in favor of the unions. The taxpayer is left out of the equation but is given the bill. The employees like myself are also out of the equation as we have no say.
By removing the collective bargaining rights on the benefits and a large part of the wage controls, it puts a feature back into play. The taxpayers can have a say at the bargaining table. Also, it permits the municipalities to set the beginning costs of employment as opposed to the unions specifying the minimum at the taxpayers’ expense. Further, it gives the municipalities greater power to react quickly to decreased revenues. I can say from experience that the unions will not elect to reduce their benefits.
They will also drag out any process for years which only hurts the municipalities when there are budget crunches. In the end, the taxpayer gets hit twice.
What it boils down to is this. If the collective bargaining powers remain with the unions, the concessions are temporary and the core problem remains. The budget problems will return and the union-politician corruption will remain. If the collective bargaining powers are largely removed, the unions will have to collect their own dues if the employees want to pay them.
It is all about control. The unions want to retain control and forced collection of dues. The opposite side wants to return it to the taxpayer and the employee. Many employees would opt out of the union if they had a choice. That would seriously hurt the union’s power, finances, and ultimately control over the politicians.
So should the public employee have a choice on whether or not to join a union? Who should have control over the public servants? Should the public servants be in control of themselves or should the taxpayer control them? Do the servants control the master or do the servants serve the master (taxpayer)? Do the people tell the government what to do or does the government tell the people what to do?
Live well,
Anah
