QUESTION FOR LIMITED-GOVERNMENT TYPES: Wasn't a big part of "limited government" making sure that the assholes leave you alone?

Then doesn't it follow, under "limited government," that

• You can join a union if you want to ; *
• You can opt to buy reasonably-priced health insurance if you want to ;
• You can access your own state capitol, without lawmen making excuses for the emperor governor, if you want to ;
• Hell, you can even be a DEDICATED CIVIL SERVANT, if you want to.

And you don't have to ask the government's permission to do any of the above!

So, um.... what's wrong with this picture???

*Bear in mind that the singular event that spelled the beginning of the end of communist tyranny in eastern Europe was the people of Poland insisting on the right to join a trade union.

 

 

Posted by Alois on  

Comments

[Deb]

I wasn't aware of anyone taking away the right of a public worker to join a union in WI, but as you mention it, we "limited gov't" types don't think public unions are the SAME as private unions.

I'm going to do a lousy job of differentiating, so here's the words of someone else:

In the private sector, consumers have the right to opt out.

If private sector unions negotiate deals that make their respective industries more expensive to operate, and thus their products more expensive, consumers have the right to buy less, or to go elsewhere to get what they want. Businesses can send fewer employees to Las Vegas conferences. Families can pinch their food budgets if labor costs at grocery stores make prices more expensive, or replace their cars less often if union benefits add too much to the price of an automobile. If too many people opt out, or buy too little, the company in question goes out of business. And unless the government offers a bailout, that’s the end of the story. When dealing with the private sector, unions generally have some incentive not to overreach to the point where their employer goes out of business.

The story’s not the same in the public sector. When government employees negotiate added salary and benefits, those who are not directly employed by the government—which is to say, the vast majority of taxpayers—can’t really opt out. So one of three things has to happen: 1) Taxes are raised to pay for the added compensation costs. 2) Services are cut in order to pay for the additional compensation. 3) The additional compensation isn’t ever paid—a situation that usually comes with, at minimum, some sort of minor political drama, if not a serious showdown. This is why the power of public sector unions is such a big deal: When they negotiate better benefits, the majority of taxpayers usually end up forced to bear the cost, somehow, whether they want to or not. With private sector unions, that’s not necessarily the case.

Source: http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/23/the-difference-between-private

Yes, the dreaded Reason.com, but the simple reason we small-gov't types don't like public sector unions (least of all MANDATORY PARTICIPATION public sector unions) is that by virtue of their ability to dictate the terms under which they will operate THE gov't (since after all, they ARE the gov't for all intents and purposes) they take over the legislative role, and that is intolerable in a republic. We have representatives, the elected representatives should craft laws protecting public workers, and if those aren't good enough, they should be REPLACED. By putting the union in the way, there is an unelected "legislature" and that is, to us small gov't types, BIG GOV'T in a BIG WAY.

Back to the "consumer," in this case is the "taxpayer." In the public sector union scenario, the taxpayer doesn't get a seat at the bargaining table (the way implicitly the consumer does by virtue of his/her power to opt-out/check and balance both union and management power by driving the overpriced/badly behaving business elsewhere. EX: this is why I won't shop Wal-Mart, b/c they treat their people like CRAP and by extension the workers at vendor companies forced to work for less in order to make their crap-ass products cheaper, and they do it by bullying, I choose to OPT-OUT and shop elsewhere on principle, yes, even if it costs MORE, many many people agree with me. Not enough to drive them out of business, but enough to perhaps, someday, give them pause, but I digress...). This is because the taxpayers indirectly FUND the union, who then contributes gobs and gobs of money, 98% of it to Democrats (this is a legit. number btw, I looked it up), who then come in and make policy favorable to the unions who got them elected, and it continues until taxpayers get fed up enough (or broke enough) to tip the balance of power back the other way (and that's what got Walker elected).

Walker is not--for all his flaws--outlawing the union, not at all. He is simply saying he doesn't want the state to deduct dues anymore, he wants membership to be VOLUNTARY. What part of "not free" is unclear about that??

No one is telling anyone not to be a dedicated civil servant. No one is saying you can't buy reasonably priced insurance if you want to. By all means, take your own money and go do that, if there are barriers to doing it, tell it to the President and state lawmakers who have created MANDATES that make insurers charge outrageous premiums, tell it to those lawmakers who have given out tax breaks to employers (private employers) for providing health insurance (giving the insurance companies captive audiences of people whose premiums are paid for in part by those with bigger pockets, so they feel more free to charge more), tell it to regulators who allow insurance companies to do unethical things like cut people off just when they get sick, even when they've paid in all along, and tell it to doctors who are complicit in all this by speaking out almost exclusively against LAWYERS (and while we're at it, let's blame THEM TOO, for the outrageous cost of malpractice insurance which they then factor in the costs of operating their practices, and tell it to drug makers who are just greedy nasty poisonous evil bastards who almost make fund managers look like saints. ;)

Gov't isn't blame-LESS, by any means, but what I understand is happening in WI is that Walker wants to cut the costs of Badgercare by instituting rationing of some sort (details a bit fuzzy to me), but to my knowledge the only ones making it currently impossible to purchase outside that group is the (you guessed it) UNION. They are acting as the employer in this case, setting up healthcare "trusts" that (for example) teachers MUST by into, and Walker (claims anyway) that he wants the union member to have the option to buy outside that trust, thus privatizing healthcare to a greater degree. But of course he's not outlawing the trust or eliminating it, merely saying he thinks there's money to be saved allowing people to buy their own coverage, and maybe that's why he wants to make Badgercare slightly less attractive to union members, so they WILL shop around, and yes, this probably seems cruel to those likely to be refused, but that's where (I thought) Obamacare comes in--the new rules make it IMPOSSIBLE for insurers in any state to refuse a sick person or to charge them "unreasonably more" (according to Sebelius). How that all will work when the rubber meets the road, I have no idea. I oppose Obamacare TOO. I'd rather see competition across state lines, I'd like to know why the high risk pool the gov't set up has so few enrollees so far (despite blowing their whole wad on a tiny fraction of those projected to sign up), but I digress again. My key point is, I wasn't aware that any "freedom" to join or buy or any of that was being deprived of the workers. And as I've said, based on my experience in IL, it is significantly LESS "free" to force a "dedicated public servant" to pay dues to a separate organization for the PRIVILEGE of BEING a dedicated public servant. Do you know how much the union heads make? Yeah, more than the Governor. Need more evidence something is screwy there??

If you have some evidence that unions (and p.s., "trade" unions are PRIVATE unions, those are still legal in all 50 states, it's just that people in right-to-work states CHOOSE not to join them. Hmmmm...wonder why???) are being outlawed, or that you will be FORCED to buy a specific type of healthcare (by someone other than the PRESIDENT), please educate me, but as a small gov't type, I oppose anything that restricts anyone's freedom to CHOOSE freely how they spent their money or where they work, even if it's allegedly "for their protection." I can't oppose the Patriot Act and support public unions. Sorry. BOTH in my opinion usurp individual freedom.

[Deb]

P.S., just because I don't support public unions and their "collective bargaining," does NOT mean that I think public servants deserve to be treated badly or in any way worse than their private sector counterparts. I simply think it is undemocratic for them to be able to "negotiate" for themselves a monopoly, to "cartelize" their work such that the taxpayers unwillingly fund a third party (the union power structure and personnel who do NOT work for the taxpayers or the state, but ultimately for their own self-preservation/perpetual existence and power). I actually think in the end, these unions have worked against the best interests of their members just the same as the UAW did for GM. But the members shouldn't be punished for this, and their sacrifices to right-size gov't and put the taxpayers back on a level playing field should NOT break their backs or single them out. The private sector should not "benefit" uniquely from the suffering of these public servants. It should NEVER be taking from Pete to pay Paul the businessman. If it must be taking from Pete, it should be taking from Paul and ONLY for the shared benefit of WI. If Walker's bill is unbalanced in this way (and I am convinced now that it is) then it should change, but as I've said before, I have seen members of the 14 missing on TV again and again and again saying Walker must give, Walker must compromise, WALKER needs another bill, but I have yet to hear ONE SINGLE IDEA to replace his. NOT ONE. They've had two weeks, going on THREE, they've read the bill, they have NO EXCUSE but to come back and hash it out, and you know what? If Walker still doesn't budge, they have every right to rant and rave for the next year until they can convince WI voters to get rid of him and bring things back the way they were if that's what they and the people want. But in the meantime, this is NOT "what democracy looks like," this is what anarchy looks like. Imagine if the GOP just LEFT D.C. rather than vote on the Stimulus bill? Shit, imagine if they shut down the gov't in two weeks (as they should)! They won't be lauded as doing the people's business, they'll be accused of killing babies and old people. But Democrats, it seems, in service mostly to the UNIONS, can skip town without so much as a competitive bill left behind to speak for them (or even an idea) and they are heroes? It makes me SICK TO MY STOMACH. THIS is what people outside WI don't like, that this is going to set some kind of example for other minority reps, "If I don't like what's happening and can't win, I'm just gonna leave and shut everything down." That's not courage, it's childish.

[Deb]

BTW, the irony of your appended comment about the Polish solidarity movement is that it occurred in a COMMUNIST country (i.e., one in which the state owns EVERYTHING). This was not a case in which there were taxpayers or mean management trying to abuse workers in a competitive environment and then denying them the ability to strike or organize. This is a case of the state-run industries (in this case, the Gdansk ship building industry) making life hard for workers and them having no legal means of protest whatsoever. They didn't even have elected reps to go to to say "Hey, we are being STARVED to death out there and underpaid and basically abused, we want to band together as the International Labor Org Treaty--to which Poland is a signatory--and protest this bullshit!" They had nothing. They fully expected to be shot or arrested or something BAD if they tried. So for them, standing up for their rights as laborers was about standing up to the state PERIOD. Sub in "farmers" for "trade union" and you could have the colonists vs. the King for chrissake! To analogize this to what's happening in WI, when the people there DO have elected reps to go to and DO have elections (free and fair) to use to oust unfair brutal "rulers" and DO have a private sector (albeit an anemic one, it's still an *option*) to go work for if the state is fucking them over, is, to say the least, a bogus analogy.

And btw, the eeeeeeeeeevil Ronald Reagan? Supported the Solidarity movement b/c it was a FREEDOM movement. They weren't asking the state to act on their behalf to FORCE other Poles to join the union, or to pay dues, or to pay higher taxes so that they might keep their benefits and salaries unchanged. They were asking not to be treated like slaves by an all-powerful state that owned and ran everything without the people having their own representatives. The so-called "workers' paradise" that people like (Ironically) Michael Moore claim communism delivers was using these people like chattle.

I see no analogy to WI whatsoever.

[Deb]

Once again, Reason explains it much better than I ever could:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/08/the-real-lesson-from-wisconsin

The gov't big enough to give you all you want and need? Also big enough to take it all away.

And saying so doesn't make one unsympathetic or "mean" or "tyrannical" or "selfish" or "greedy," just conscious and not in denial.

[Pete (Alois)]

All the wonderfully erudite and considered reasoning you employ here still dances around the elephant in the room (and one that Wisconsinites rightfully dread): Few if any people in the United States have ever seen a governor try to seize absolute power. Walker is not interested in talking to ANYONE (which is why the 14 Dems left the state, to GET HIS ATTENTION). Walker is interested only in ruling by executive fiat. He's completely uninterested in anyone who agrees with him less than 100%.

Speaking of the Poles, Walker makes Wojciech Jaruzelski look like a saint. He's cut from the same mold as an Erich Honecker or a Nicolai Ceaucescu.

[Deb]

But Pete! He hasn't GOT absolute power! The proof is in the pudding. They left, he's unable to do much of anything b/c of parliamentary rules in WI. He can fire people I guess, to a point, and he can ask for (and get I guess) summons or warrants for arrest for the 14 missing (they ARE skipping out on their JOB in the technical sense). If he were attempting to seize power in the absolute sense, he'd have succeeded by now. Instead, his numbers are falling and he's STUCK. Don't you see the political bind he's in? The best he's going to do is "win" the battle but lose the war. He won't be reelected unless his bill actually DOES set things right and bring business and jobs to WI, and in VERY VERY short order I might add (how likely is THAT?). So at best, rather than "absolute power" for the next, what, year? He'll be a soon-to-be EX governor with a book deal.

Hardly Ceaucescu.

Again, hyperbole and these bizarre historical analogies aren't really selling me on public unions. Even if Walker is everything you say he is, it doesn't change the fact that the UNION doesn't do SHIT for the taxpayers, the state, or, frankly, YOU. If they did, they'd have already agreed to reduce dues, allow choice in healthcare (rather than forcing the trusts on people) and to voluntary membership. They aren't INTERESTED in your freedom, they are interested in conserving YOUR POWER. One could just as easily say THEY are attempting to seize power from the duly elected Governor and the legislature by encouraging (intimidating?) the Dems into leaving and STAYING GONE (they and their allies in other large unions are FUNDING the hotel stays of these assclowns). There are people in WI (roughly half the population) who feel as though THEIR voice has been taken to IL with these people b/c they refuse to come back and face the music (i.e., LOSE THIS ONE).

It all depends how you look at it, who's controlling whom. Your job is insecure *either way.* The "big lie" is the one Moore and the union are selling: The country and the state ARE BROKE, and to me, the "elephant in the room" is the MISSING BILL suggestion from the DEMOCRATS.

I'm still waiting to see it. It's been three weeks (and that's being generous, they've had since Walker was elected to come up with their game-plan for addressing what he always said he was planning to do. This was their plan? Pretty lame if you ask me.

[ligneus]

You can join a union if you want to ;

We know that, what you don't have the freedom to do is to not join a union if you don't want to in certain trades and professions. Well you have the option of learning something else.

But let the unions make make the case for us.

[ligneus]

I rest my case.

[ligneus]

Update.

[Deb]

Ah, I see they finally did what they've been able legally to do all along (did he finally figure it out, or did they just get tired of waiting for Democrats to come back, who knows?).

One question I have is, why didn't the Dems. consider this possibility when they left and work harder to find more common ground to keep him from doing this? Did they, perhaps, not know their own legislative rules?

Either way, it's done now, and I'm sure it's going to be rough in Madison for a while (hope people can remain sane and not get violent about this), but as I said last night, if this proves to be as catastrophic as the unions claim, it will show itself soon and he won't get reelected next time, and the next person who gets elected (no doubt with MASSIVE contributions from unions, both WI and national groups) will surely put things back the way they were.

The question I have for those who hate Walker is, what if his plan works? What if by some miracle, things do improve a bit for the state financially?

[moderate dem]

Deb, the state may well improve financially - but at what price?

Too many corporations over the last few decades have been quite financially successful but cutting American workers and taking the jobs off shore (and having the execs pocket the increased profits). Is that really good for America? We have let our economic system get carried away not by the need for profits, but rather higher profits, record profits. A company who makes a steady profit has its stock tank. As if things always expand and never contract.

The unions have already agreed to make concessions; that doesn't matter to Governor Walker - his intent is simply to bust the unions.

Ronald Reagan: "Where Free Unions and Collective Bargaining are Forbidden, Freedom is Lost".

Finally, what happened to the respect for the heroes of 9/11, the firefighters and police, who are now being tarred with the idea that they are greedy for wanting good pay and benefits, and for wanting their collective bargaining rights? When did conservatives, who loved them almost 10 years ago, decide they were enemies of the state? (never any problem with that with liberals and moderates.

[Deb]

A) Reagan wasn't talking about public unions B) No one says first responders are greedy. In fact, the more I thinknabout it the more I wish they could be exempted permanently because they are fundamentally different from (for example) teachers. They risk ALL to do their jobs. But leaving that aside, no one thinks the workers are bad, just their union which *is* separate from them, from the taxpayer's POV and the governor's (office, not just this one guy).

As for offshoring, no public worker's job can be offshoref really. Is your point that if only taxpayers made more they could afford to keep paying govt workers as much and taking on these high legacy fixed costs? Cuz if so, a) you're wrong (the unions would just ask for even more) and b)that's a pretty crappy argument FOR unions. Not one of you had answered me: what earthly good do public sector unions do for taxpayers? Do they keep our jobs here? No. Do they advocate for us non-dues payers? No. Do the contribute equitably to political
parties or stick to bias reflecting animosity towards half of us who don't share their views, using OUR MONEY? Answer my damn question. Stop with the deflection to pretending public workers give a crap about the poor taxpayers. It's blatantly obvious from what's going on in Madison that the couldn't give two shits about us. It's a fucking lie, and a lousy one. Nit working. Unless you can tell me how their fury helps one of us keep our jobs, save it for some gullible union loyalist. I'm not buying.