Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels says:
he sees the results from Wisconsin's recall race as a "turning point" in trying to curb the influence and benefits enjoyed by public-employee unions. ... it's "now visible to voters almost everywhere that it really needs to be brought under sort of control in the interests of people who pay the taxes,"Visible to folks everywhere, except to Washington's Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna, who:
has repeatedly distanced himself from [Wisconsin Gov. ] Walker and says state workers have no reason to fear him if he's elected governor. He's also called collective bargaining a right.I'll save a longer discourse on McKenna's gubernatorial campaign for another time. I'll vote for him in November, but I'm less positively impressed by candidate McKenna than I expected to be."Collective bargaining isn't the problem in our state. It's the people doing the bargaining who have been the problem," McKenna said in an interview last week.
Candidates generally don't have the flexibility to express all of their opinions and aspirations like the rest of us can. I don't know what McKenna truly thinks about government union collective bargaining. But any thoughtful and honest assessment says that (1) government union collective bargaining is not a "right" but a privilege which has been granted by statute and which can be revoked by statute; (2) The single biggest obstacle standing between the citizens and responsive, cost-effective government is government unions -- with their collective bargaining privileges, and with their ability to take tax dollars by way of mandatory and automatic "dues" collection, and spend those tax dollars on self-serving political activity.
Implementing any of the pro-citizen reforms that McKenna promises is contingent on eliminating the government unions' de facto veto over these reforms. So I'll give McKenna the benefit of the most charitable explanation I can think of for his above comments. I'll allow that although he made an unnecessary and reckless rhetorical concession, he's bowing to the reality that there's nothing he can do to roll back union privileges without a legislative majority. In which case, winning a conservative majority in the Legislature is at least as important as electing a Republican governor.
The upshot for me -- again, vote for McKenna in November. But there are a lot of races on the ballot and we all have finite budgets of time, money and energy to invest in campaigns. Invest wisely, in the combination of Presidential, Congressional, Legislative, Judicial, initiative and other statewide contests where you believe your invested resources will make the most difference in our future.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 10, 2012 11:59 AM | Email ThisYou're playing word games. Sure, it's not a right in the constitution or the Bible. Lots of "rights", such as this one, are conferred by law. And people differ on whether it should be a moral right.
"(2) The single biggest obstacle standing between the citizens and responsive, cost-effective government is government unions -- with their collective bargaining privileges, and with their ability to take tax dollars by way of mandatory and automatic "dues" collection, and spend those tax dollars on self-serving political activity."
You provide no evidence for this assertion -- not any assessment, let alone a "thoughtful and honest assessment", let alone a case that any "thoughtful and honest assessment" would prove it. And you provide no evidence that these unions are bad, let alone the "single biggest obstacle" to the good government you seek.
Posted by: Bruce on June 10, 2012 02:51 PMIf Bruce's House of Crazy, as private entity, wants to have a union - go for it. But to have people who work FOR the people bargaining against the people is insane and expensive as failing cities, counties and states all over the country can attest. And more than expensive is the horror that those not producing, those utterly failing and those abusing the people who pay them can't be fired.
How the heck the government go into the protection racket, I'll never know, but they've learned well from and usurped the Mafia of old and it has to end.
WE THE PEOPLE need protection from the government and it's often lazy, always arrogant, entitlement mentality.
Bruce's House of Crazy can negotiate amongst themselves.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 10, 2012 03:09 PMThe salient point in the post is that McKenna can't do anything about collective bargaining anyway without a legislative majority, so there's no point in even talking about it and giving his opponent an issue to attack him on.
Posted by: Palouse on June 10, 2012 05:34 PMBy the same token, Scott Brown is a whole lot more conservative than faux-Indian Warren.
Posted by: KDS on June 10, 2012 07:46 PMAnd regarding McKenna's public union pandering.... disgusting, but not something that really is surprising. He knows who really runs the state, and it certainly isn't the people taxpayers elect.
Posted by: FurryGuy on June 10, 2012 11:43 PMBut Stefan's statement that they are the biggest problem with our government is ridiculous, and his claim that "any thoughtful and honest assessment" would conclude that is even more ridiculous.
Posted by: Bruce on June 10, 2012 11:59 PMLet the union collect the payment direcly from the employee they are representing by cash, check or credit/debit just like any other business has to.
Wonder what their accounts receivable would look like in 90 days?
Posted by: James on June 11, 2012 08:57 AM... The entire purpose of unions is, ostensibly, to protect the workers from abuse, unfair treatment and outright danger from capitalist bosses. When profit is your motive, every dime spent on wages comes out of your bottom line. Ensuring worker safety, providing essential benefits and stimulating offers of other enticements are costly items on the balance sheet which need to be minimized wherever possible.
So who do the workers go to when they face such inequities? The government, of course. Government at all levels is responsible for making sure that the Big Boss doesn't abuse the workers to the point of endangering them, discriminating against them or otherwise taking advantage. But what if you work for the government? If your employer is the entity which is supposedly responsible for looking out for your welfare, what is the rationale for having a union?
If we say that even public sector workers need protection from their employer we would seem to be making a rather uncomfortable admission that the government isn't terribly good at their job of protecting workers in the first place.
BINGO! Of course Bruce will ignore inconvenient facts and common sense.
American people in a government union are bargaining against the American people for protection form the government who employs them.
Perhaps LOGIC should be a required high school course ... instead of diversity training and sex education.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 11, 2012 09:18 AMRelevant passage:
... When unions bargain with management in the private sector, both sides are contending for a share of the private profits that labor helps produce -- and both sides are constrained by the pressures of market discipline. Managers can't ignore the company's bottom line. Unions know that if they demand too much they may cost the company its competitive edge.
But when labor and management bargain in the public sector, they are divvying up public funds, not private profits. Government bureaucrats don't have to worry about losing business to their competitors; state agencies can't relocate to another part of the country. There is little incentive to hold down wages and benefits, since the taxpayers who will be picking up the tab have no seat at the table. On the other hand, government managers have a powerful motivation to yield to government unions: Union members vote, and their votes can be deployed to reward politicians who give them what they want -- or punish those who don't.
*Emphasis mine.
Note to noisy lefties ... and Bruce:
Christian apologist C.S. Lewis wrote, "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.",
I think you're just not happy with who those taxpayers elect. Tough.
McKenna can get what we need w/out picking optional fights with unions.
Posted by: Andy on June 11, 2012 09:48 AMI don't remember bureaucrats being on my ballot.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 11, 2012 09:50 AM
YOUR government (federal, state, city, county ... whichever,) is totally completely broke, on the verge of collapse and bankruptcy. There are no more taxes to raise. You are in charge and you have only TWO choices:
Massive (>50%) welfare cuts or public sector union cuts/dissolution.
Choose, Bruce.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 11, 2012 10:13 AMI think you're just not happy with who those taxpayers elect. Tough.
I take it from that Bruce that you were OPPOSED to the attempted recall of Scott Walker in Wisconsin? What an unexpected bit of good sense. I guess it's true what they say about broken clocks being right twice a day, huh?
Posted by: Bastiat Fan on June 11, 2012 11:58 AMhttp://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53000.html
Posted by: Mike336 on June 11, 2012 02:06 PMI will admit to a shade of gray here even though you have expressed your disdain for shades of gray: Union rights are needed less in the public sphere than the private since there is another check on potential abuses of power by the employer, namely that we elect the employer. But that doesn't mean unions of government employees are entirely evil.
Posted by: Bruce on June 11, 2012 02:55 PMThat's a lovely false narrative you've got there.
No, private entity CONSUMERS do not have input into hiring and firing. But INVESTORS do, because they expect excellence in pursuing return on their investment.
Should private INVESTORS care to submit to the whims and demands of a union that's their right to do so with THEIR OWN MONEY. I'm a stockholder. Should I dislike the direction a company is taking, I sell the stock. If as an investor I hate private unions which I acknowledge have the right to exist I don't invest in companies that allow them.
I and every other taxpayer have no voice and no choice when it comes to public sector unions that bargain against us with our own money and then waste it to great excess and more disregard.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 11, 2012 05:47 PMItem: remember he was kicked off the Sound Transit Board for honestly addressing the financial unfeasibility of the Democrat gravy train.
Hence his tenure at the A.G.'s office has been mostly plain-vanilla concerns like consumer protection, with only the participation in the State's lawsuit against Obamacare flagging his concern for the rule of law and signalling his deviations from blue-state lockstep.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 11, 2012 07:26 PMI may not be the most articulate debater but I never run from a good argument.... or a bad one.
A couple of headlines for Bruce the great government union defender:
Private Jobs Down 4.6M From 2008; Fed Jobs Up 11.4%. Huh. I guess that messes with the Koolaid narrative, eh Bruce? Oh wait. Bruce is MIA.
State spending up 14% Yoo hoo Bruce. Remember saying this: But Stefan's statement that they are the biggest problem with our government is ridiculous? Oh wait. Bruce is MIA.
School union wins 'right' to eat expired food - Yep, GREAT use of taxpayer resources, eh Bruce? Oh wait. Bruce is MIA.
One just has to wonder if MIA Bruce the great public union defender is perhaps PART of a government union....
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 12, 2012 10:30 AMOh, and I've never been a member of a union -- public sector or private. (Nor did I defend unions anywhere in this thread, contrary to your lies.) But now you may have the last word (and I suspect you will have many), because I'm done with this thread.
Posted by: Bruce on June 12, 2012 11:28 AM Rag@30, you win. You are absolutely right.
*******************
Taaaaaaaa-da!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 12, 2012 12:37 PM