Alright ladies and gentlemen, I am back, your humble correspondent, el rush..... o wait a minute. No it's just me, you humble little blatherer giving his two cents on events around the world that effect the US. This post will be dedicated to the situation in Wisconsin where Gov. Scott Walker is trying to pass through legislation that would require state workers to pay more into their pensions and insurance policies. The plan on the surface seems alright, but the controversial parts of it are that it would allow people to choose whether or not to join a union, and it would end the ability of the unions to negotiate pay raises and benefits for state workers.
On state workers being able to opt not to join the union I ask why not? If unions are so great and they are so valuable than they will survive easily. They no doubt will lose some dues, but that hardly seems worth the kind of outrage that is currently being displayed in Madison. People should have a right to decide what to do with their own money, they give enough often in state and federal taxes, why should they be forced to pay union dues as well especially when those unions often times are proven to be wasteful with said funds?
That said the other part of the spending bill does draw a good bit of ire, and that is this refusal of the union to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. This appears to tie in with the first line above, if you allow the union to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, what does that mean for the non-unionized people? Should they get the raise even though they did not pay any dues? Should they be paid less for wanting to not join a union? The solution is to take the CBR off the table and leave it up to someone else to get the pay raises and make them universal for all state workers.
With that said you may ask why people would then want to join a union, what good does it do if it can't have the power to negotiate pay raises? Well to that I would say that they still act as an agent to protect the pensions and healthcare plans of their members. Those are no small things and I would suggest that it is more than fair to pass this state spending bill with an eye towards further cuts, and if Walker really wants to close the gap, a temporary or permanent tax of some kind. Yes, it's a key broken campaign promise but this spending bill is essentially "taxing" or requiring state workers to give back as it is, it should be matched my some measure in the private sector if it's all to be fair. Perhaps a additional nickle tax on gasoline, or cigarettes, or sales tax. Plenty of avenues here, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.
In closing I want to highlight comments made by President Barrack Obama on the issue. He has called it an "assault on unions." An "assault" language like this again used by those who decry it after the tragedy at Tuscon, but I digress. The President again weighed in on a state issue as he did in Arizona's immigration bill and in a local matter as he did in the "beer gate" incident in Mass. Each time he has done this the results have not been favorable to him and I think this will be another one that hurts him in Wisconsin and among independent voters. The federal has racked up a huge deficit on his watch and it is something that voters are not happy about, attacking a governor who is attempting to close a budget gap will be political fodder against him soon after this is past in Wisconsin.
That's it for me, any comments from the peanut gallery?
-Zach
No comments:
Post a Comment