Walker v. Public Employees

[Red Arrow]

So the question now is, what does it do for organized labor nationwide, what does it do for Democrats, and Republicans, and what does it do for 2012.   

I think it will depend a lot on what the rank and file union members believe that the unions can do for them.  There have certainly been a lot of vocal union supporters at protests.   I see a bit of a difference between Union Leadership and the R&F members in that the Leadership is fighting to keep their power whereas the R&F members may see it as powerless to keep certain privileges and benefits.  We'll see.

[Gaspar]

I think we're almost to an endgame in regards to the Wisconsin protests.  That is:  at some point, and probably soon, the Dems will come back, they will vote and be overridden and Walker's budget will take effect.  That will include the abolition of collective bargaining rights. 

(There's no way now that Walker's budget doesn't include abolition of those rights; it's now not only the centerpiece of his budget solution but now the centerpiece of his political career.)

So the question now is, what does it do for organized labor nationwide, what does it do for Democrats, and Republicans, and what does it do for 2012.   

My opinion is that it's been an unqualified win for labor -- regardless of the final result in WI -- simply because it's energized the unions.  This has put into very stark relief the stakes, and IMO they will now see this wave of state questions as existential threats. So the unions will be much more involved in not only funding politicians but in striking, protesting, and actively pushing back.  Conservatives will predictably hate this, progressives will predictably love it.

Conservatives are already energized for 2012 and have been since the midterms, but I think progressives are starting to finally get their mojo in gear, too.  Tellingly, it's not around Obama and his accomplishments, but around defending labor, whose accomplishments can be traced back (in the popular liberal mind, if not in point of fact) to Roosevelt, the New Deal, and Depression-era politics. 

Roosevelt has always been the place that modern American liberals wanted to go -- in tone, in policy, etc -- but Obama has been actively resisting a lot of that push.  Obama's been conciliatory, hands off, and just hasn't wanted to lead the wave that his campaign generated.  There's been a lot of momentum lost. 

Anyway, it's given a boost to progressives by showing just how far some of the GOP folks will go to dismantle not just traditionally liberal voting blocs but traditionally liberal values (unions don't vote Democratic just because they want to; there's some ideological affinity there).  I think the jury's still out on how the GOP will fare.   

There are over a dozen reasons why I love your post, but this is by far the most important.  Progressives and Liberals have taken this Union battle to heart, and for good reason.  Today, the percentage of union laborers is far greater on the public side than the private side.  According to WSJ In 1960 31.9% of private sector workers and 10.8% of government workers were members of unions. In 2010 the numbers are reversed. 36.6% of government workers are union members while only 6.9% of private workers are.  

The very survival of unions is linked to government.  The private sector has moved on and the unions have made their way into the last corner of the labor market.  There was some speculation that President Obama would grant collective bargaining rights to federal union employees once elected, however after this very public incident in Wisconsin, that will never happen.

We are watching the death of an antiquated system that valued the group over the individual.  Technology has brought us past this, but technology moves slower in government, that's why it became an attractive shelter for the union mentality.

The fact that progressives and liberals are still following the pipers of the unions delights me, because it proves something I have suspected for a long time.

[we vs us]

I think it will depend a lot on what the rank and file union members believe that the unions can do for them.  There have certainly been a lot of vocal union supporters at protests.   I see a bit of a difference between Union Leadership and the R&F members in that the Leadership is fighting to keep their power whereas the R&F members may see it as powerless to keep certain privileges and benefits.  We'll see.

On one level I agree . . . whatever lesson that comes out of Wisconsin is going to be based in the perceived effectiveness of the unions.  But I also think that the effectiveness of the unions won't be measured in how well they preserve their benefit, per se, but in how strongly they fight to keep them. 

I think that the unions have to understand that in WI at least they are going to lose.  They don't have any real levers of power.  But they've been marching in Madison for two weeks now, and that's a pretty strong show of force. 

[Townsend]

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134203177/why-unions-matter-to-democrats-its-not-just-money?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Why Unions Matter To Democrats: It's Not Just Money

The fight over public employee unions has exploded into a high-stakes partisan war. In Wisconsin and several other states, Republicans want to strip government unions of many collective bargaining rights. Two favorite proposals would disrupt the ability of unions to build their political funds. And that would deal a major blow to the Democratic Party.

In a fireside chat last month on television, Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker said his proposal is all about fiscal policy.

"It certainly isn't a battle with unions," he said. "If it was, we would have eliminated collective bargaining entirely, or we would have gone after the private-sector unions."

But on Wednesday, the Republican National Committee threw that argument out the window with a television ad airing in Wisconsin. According to the ad, "Obama and the union bosses are standing in the way of economic reform."

At the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group, Peter Flaherty takes it even further. "To be blunt," he says, "we can either bust the unions, or we can bust the country."

John Wilson, director of the National Education Association, says Republicans have oversimplified and misread the facts of his union.

"What they don't see is the fact that the NEA has 1 million Republican members."

That's nearly one-third of all NEA members. And Wilson says he's been hearing from them.

"Many of our Republican members basically have said, 'I'm not voting for Republican officeholders who take away my collective bargaining rights.' So I think [Republicans] should be very careful about what they're trying to do," says Wilson. "They actually might create a situation where they're losing votes."

[guido911]

That's nearly one-third of all NEA members. And Wilson says he's been hearing from them.

"Many of our Republican members basically have said, 'I'm not voting for Republican officeholders who take away my collective bargaining rights.' So I think [Republicans] should be very careful about what they're trying to do," says Wilson. "They actually might create a situation where they're losing votes."

So the director of the NEA says that one third of its members are republican. So, I guess that 1/3 of the NEA political contributions go to republicans and republican causes then?

...In all, over 3.2 million teachers are currently dues-paying members of the NEA.  With annual dues generally exceeding $500 (about 1 percent of the average teacher salary), teachers should know how their dollars are being spent.  Many will probably be surprised by the causes they are unintentionally supporting.

******

Of course, that the National Education Association supports liberal policies and organizations shouldn't be news to anyone now.  According to OpenSecrets.org, since 1990, the NEA has given 93 percent of its political contributions to Democrats.

*****

The report shows that the NEA spent $32 million on political activities and lobbying and made $80 million in contributions and gifts to various organizations.  Included in the list of groups receiving funding is a roster of left-wing organizations: People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, ACORN, Amnesty International, the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Campaign for America's Future, Rainbow Push Coalition, the NAACP, and the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

http://www.heritage.org/research/education-notebook/nea-doesnt-represent-all-teachers

So 1M repub members of the NEA may go off the reservation over collective bargaining rights yet stay members of the NEA despite its support of issues in large measure are inconsistent with republican views? Whatever.

[we vs us]

So the director of the NEA says that one third of its members are republican. So, I guess that 1/3 of the NEA political contributions go to republicans and republican causes then?

http://www.heritage.org/research/education-notebook/nea-doesnt-represent-all-teachers

So 1M repub members of the NEA may go off the reservation over collective bargaining rights yet stay members of the NEA despite its support of issues in large measure are inconsistent with republican views? Whatever.

Awesome.  More purity!  Big tents = teh sux!   

[guido911]

Awesome.  More purity!  Big tents = teh sux!   

What, you disagree that those groups supported by the NEA are likewise supported by the repubs? Believe it or not, political parties do have issues unique to them. I know, shocking as that is. And speaking of "big tent", I didn't read where the NEA supports pro-life or 2nd Amendment rights. I guess they just never heard of those.

[guido911]

Will we soon need a "Kasich v. Public Employees Union" thread?

he Ohio state Senate passed a bill Wednesday that would curb the collective bargaining rights of public workers and strip away their power to strike.

Lawmakers approved the measure by a count of 17 to 16, with six Republicans voting in opposition.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/02/ohio.budget/index.html?section=cnn_latest