Michael Barone: "Public-sector unions bleed taxpayers"
Sadly, these people do wield a lot of political power, but we know from experience that the will of the people, when they are united in a just cause, is unstoppable.
Let's expose this cycle of bleeding the taxpayers and let's destroy this industry once and for all.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 8, 2010 11:42 AMThat's the stealth game of Obama & Co. A collusion to expand the public sector and its parasite employee unions, at the expense of the productive private sector, until they 'control the commanding heights' - of the economy, of government, and of us all.
Time for the tea parties to address this travesty of democracy, and consider organizing a union of their own. A Taxpayer's Union, capable of using Alinsky tactics to isolate and demonize this growing new class of fat cat public employees, to throttle their entitlements to more wages, less hours, less responsibility, more vacation and sick leave, and more lavish retirements.
Or to install a new President who will deal with the SEIU as President Reagan did with the air traffic controllers - who also thought they were indispensable. That might take a little longer, so an early start will be prudent.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 8, 2010 01:03 PMWill never happen with Democrats in charge of everything. And I don't think Tim Eyman would do an initiative on it either. He probably fears for his safety from the likes of Ivan and other union thugs.
Posted by: Palouse on February 8, 2010 01:59 PMOne day we'll live in a land where these fat cats make half as much money and have no fancy ability to retire. Then we'd all be better off!
Posted by: LaborGoon on February 8, 2010 02:45 PMOn school teachers, I recently got a look at the salaries for the local elementary school. There were multiple people there making over $80K and 2 making $100K+ annually and that is base salary and doesn't include benefits. So, perhaps the whole "teachers are poor" thing might not have the impact it used to have with me.
Past that, I'd be willing to bet that the "Union Goon" who wrote this is neither a teacher, policeman nor prison guard. My guess is "high paid government salary bureaucrat that posts on Sound Politics while on the job."
Posted by: johnny on February 8, 2010 03:40 PMUnions overvalue their employees without an index for merit since many can't be fired, and correspondingly the market reacts by devaluing union shops. If the teachers, firefighters, etc. where smart like today's knowledge workers at Microsoft and other tech companies, they would do away with their unions and compete vigorously based on merit for the money that is otherwise wasted on propping up the unions. Of course the lazy teachers that are expecting to retire early after doing a poor job wouldn't like this new arrangement at all, but the aspiring new teachers would be more than willing to prove their worth if they got paid what a Microsoft employee did.
As for the benefit packages, well, with states going bankrupt and the Feds going bankrupt too, new employees are foolish to count on any future help from government just as anyone below 50 counting on Social Security is a fool.
It's not going to be there for you, so you should get off your butt and add some value to society at a marketable price. That's what most of us privately employed taxpayers do, and that's the only reason public employees exist at all.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 8, 2010 04:26 PMthat's a fabulous idea. all the whiny teabaggin' wingnuts can live in texas, obstruct all they want in one state, and leave the governing to adults.
daniel:
Thugs running the Country.
they already did, and wrecked the economy. now they whine and carry hats w/ teabags and pray for obama to die. pathetic lunatics, all of 'em.
http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/04/27/p40718
Posted by: Smokie on February 8, 2010 07:59 PMwhat's it like to live in a country full of 'losers' that outnumber you 2:1 and want nothing to do with your failed ideas, obstructionist tactics, asinine policies, whining, lying, homophobia, bigotry, etc? and you think i'm the joke? yer hilariously pathetic.
but don't frown, texas is waiting for you! although, with all the culture down there, you'd probably feel as much of an outsider as you do here in the liberal NW where you're outnumbered 3:1. there's always wyoming? you can finally live out your tea baggin' fantasy with dick cheney!
and do you really think an idiot like you could set me straight? ha, now that's a good one. why would i want the backwards b.s. you constantly peddle? i have no desire to live in your world of vile hatred, disgust and contempt.
Posted by: mike on February 8, 2010 09:07 PMYeah...I wouldn't bother trying to set you straight. What a waste that would be. However, you do have a strong ability and that is your ability to Project as represented by your last sentence. What a simplistic Dork!
Mike simply projects and attacks because the "progressive" record is pathetic. He also will never acknowledge that the Slavery Party was controlled the Senate from June 2001 to January 2003, and controlled the House and Senate from January 2007 until now. Of those "8 years of rethuglican control" that leftists love to spout, almost half of them saw the Congress under partial or complete control of the Slavery Party.
And as far as Washington State, when was the last GOP Governor or Legislature? It's been decades.
The FACTS speak for themselves; in the first Pelosi/Obama/Reid budget (2009) the deficit was greater than the previous 7 years under President Bush.
Under 5 years of Governor Gregoire, State spending has increased 33%.
If we had the same Federal Budget this year that we had in 2007, the tax receipts coming in this year would net a $160 billion SURPLUS. The problem is not revenue - the problem is spending which has exploded.
For all the shouts of rage against Bush's profligate spending, there is a hypocritical silence from the left. I guess the problem in their mind isn't spending, but what it is spent on. In the typical leftist mind, the fundamental fiscal policy of spending more than you have isn't bad, it's what you spend it on.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 9, 2010 10:47 AMI agree, a really excellent article by Barone.
As a leftist, I divide unions into roughly three categories:
1. private sector unions in third world countries where feudal caste systems still in power mean that workers are treated like serfs. Colombia is an example now where union activists are as likely to be found in a ditch with their throats slit as at a Union Hall. The US was like this back in the 1800s and early 1900s, when 13 (I think) Haymarket Square Union leaders who led a rally to establish an eight hour day were hanged in Chicago.
2. Private sector unions in a high-functioning capitalist society like current day USA.
On these, I agree 100% with what Barone says, that they ultimately hamper the company with their adversarial approach. Also, the ability of unions to get higher wages in a good labor market is probably overstated. If you were a worker in a more third-world labor market, like the ag sector, however, you might want to join the Farmworkers Union still.
3. Public Unions. These are so different from the first two, it's surprising that even the Paleo-Left doesn't see a huge distinction. Although they certainly have legitimate struggles now and then in that certain groups of public workers may be at times underpaid or some jobs might be understaffed, they generally pose a threat to government solvency in that they are so much more capable of influencing the system than citizen-groups on the outside, and their natural ally is the politician while their natural enemy is the taxpayer.
Thanks all,
new left conservative
Posted by: new left conservative on February 9, 2010 08:49 PM