The largest trade union in the country is composed of government workers. George Will explains what happens when the government is both the “employer” and the “worker”:
Such unions are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself to do what it always wants to do anyway – grow. These unions use dues extracted from members to elect their members’ employers. And governments, not disciplined by the need to make a profit, extract government employees’ salaries from taxpayers. Government sits on both sides of the table in cozy “negotiations” with unions.
(Via: Gene Veith)
February 25th, 2011 | 10:07 am
FDR said this close to eighty years ago.
February 25th, 2011 | 10:34 am
We’re watching this front-and-center in Wisconsin with new developments by the hour. Archbishop Jerome Listecki of Milwaukee did us proud when he called on all sides to remember Catholic social teaching calls that the just solution to the conflict be one which provides the greatest common good. Not sure anyone is listening… still it was good to hear him say it. Pray for us please.
February 25th, 2011 | 12:41 pm
As opposed to what?
I’m not seeing how this is different from G.E. lobbying the FCC or the EPA to get regulations that favor them and then spending money to get candidates who will give them money or pass the regulations they want, elected.
I’m not seeing how this is different from the revolving door between Goldman Sachs and the Treasury Department and the money they send to candidates to get people who will give them government money or pass regulations which are favorable to them elected.
I’m not seeing how this differs from dairy farmers getting milk subsidies and then sending money to get congressmen elected who will continue their milk subsidies. (I’m pretty sure that ending milk subsidies must be next on the Governor of Wisconsin’s agenda, since he’s a real fiscal conservative.)
Let me see if I can tease out the reasoning:
If you work for wages for the government it is wrong for you to get together with your fellow employees to lobby the government for more money and then use some of that money to get the government officials who increased your wages re-elected.
But if you’re a major corporation and you pay an army of lawyers to lobby the government for more money and then use some of that money to get government officials elected who increase the amount of money you will receive, that’s okay!
Geez Joe you’re a Christian not a Republican.
February 25th, 2011 | 1:05 pm
But if you’re a major corporation and you pay an army of lawyers to lobby the government for more money and then use some of that money to get government officials elected who increase the amount of money you will receive, that’s okay!
No it’s not okay. Who said it way? Certainly not me.
Geez Joe you’re a Christian not a Republican.
What does that even mean? Opposing the unionization of public service workers for just the reason George Will points out was originally opposed by FDR and other Democrats. It wasn’t until they realized how much money could be made off supporting them that Democrats starting supporting public-service unions.
February 25th, 2011 | 1:34 pm
It was a good quote from George Will.
But a lousy quote from that archbishop. Do what’s for the common good? Of course. But that’s what the struggle is all about.
Maybe there are plenty of bloodsuckers on the federal dole. But these teachers stand out in two ways: 1) They are mostly bleeding the states white, not the federal government, although they get their share there too. 2) They are a good part of the reason our schools are so bad. Our schools cost more per pupil than any others in the world, yet rank only 30th in performance. We act as if money (including to the teachers) can solve the problem. We should not only put the teachers on a leash, but give parents vouchers so teachers can learn how to compete.
February 25th, 2011 | 1:55 pm
“No it’s not okay. Who said it was? Certainly not me.”
So I see we’re going to start with the people at the bottom and if we have any energy left maybe we’ll take on the people at the top.
My point is, if this is really a point of principle start with the richest not with the poorest. Here’s a columnist associated with a party that is is identified with being a shill for the rich and rather than show the strength of his principle by taking on the rich corporations which, as my mom calls it, farm the government, he starts with secretaries, teachers, policemen, and firemen?
And you’re telling me that as a Christian you don’t find anything at all troubling with that?
“What does that even mean?”
I mean that the ends of God do not always synchronize with those of the Republican Party.
February 25th, 2011 | 1:58 pm
Tax cuts for billionaires – Pay cuts for teachers.
Yaaaaay…God!
February 25th, 2011 | 2:29 pm
Greg, what about this for a reasonable compromise: No public employee unions should be allowed to donate time or money to any political campaign or engage in any lobbying. Of course, the individual employees could, if they wanted to, support any cause or candidate they want.
This way we would avoid the inherent conflict-of-interest problems with a union that uses the mechanism of government to extract dues that are then in turn used to support candidates who promise to increase wages that would result in more dues.
This would make collective bargaining more even-handed, with both workers and taxpayers adequately represented in terms of their interests.
February 25th, 2011 | 2:32 pm
@Greg — Joe quotes someone who is “associated” with something that is “identified” with something, and that means that Joe gets berated for what the group that the columnist is associated with is identified with, because of what Joe did not say *in this particular post?*
Does that mean you can’t find anything to object to in anything anyone actually said, but you had to comment anyway?
February 25th, 2011 | 2:32 pm
“Here’s a columnist associated with a party that is identified with being a shill for the rich”
Hey, Greg: you must be a liberal. Insults masquerading as argument.
“Tax cuts for billionaires – Pay cuts for teachers”
As everyone but you knows, there are hardly enough billionaires to make taxing them worthwhile–especially if they will respond by sending their capital overseas, where they can get a better return anyway. In contrast, teachers are bringing states to their knees. Go ahead, cut off your nose to spite your face.
February 25th, 2011 | 3:51 pm
@Thomas Aquinas
I think that would be a reasonable compromise if it included the provision that no officers, board members or shareholders of any company/business/entity/farm/sole proprietorship/or other type of business entity (Three years of law school finally pays off;-) ) that is regulated by the federal government or receives money from the Federal government should be allowed to donate time or money to any political campaign or engage in any lobbying. Of course, the individuals could, if they wanted to, support any cause or candidate they want.
Does that sound right to you?
February 25th, 2011 | 4:07 pm
@ pentamom
I guess I owe Joe an apology. I mistakenly assumed that Joe posted Mr. Will’s comments because he approved of them. Thank you for setting me right.
Is Mr. Will not associated with the Republican Party? Once again I beg forgiveness for this mistaken assumption.
Has the Republican Party not been accused of being the party of the rich? Surely I got at least that right. I mean, I’ve been a Republican for 30 or so years so you’d think I’d know that. But again, if mistaken, I beg your forgiveness.
Doesn’t attacking school teachers for activity that Joe admits is identical to that of large corporations and other rich people, and ignoring that identical activity on the part of these large corporations and rich people confirm (What I hoped was…) this sterotype of the Republican party?
Doesn’t God think it’s wrong to side with the rich against the less well off?
- Proverbs 22:16 He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.
February 25th, 2011 | 4:13 pm
Greg brings up the important point that there are other ways for government to be “captured” by special interests – regulatory capture being a good example. It’s not at all clear what this has to do with Democrats vs. Republicans, though (let alone what it has to do with religion and God). GE, which he uses as an example of corporate lobbying, was a top donor for Obama in 2008. Regulatory capture happens more easily when there are more regulations. Farm subsidies are a regional issue – sadly, there isn’t a partisan divide on those.
Both parties are in bed with big businesses. We can talk about how to mitigate the effects of that without constraining constitutional freedoms, but it has very, very little to do with one party rather than the other.
February 25th, 2011 | 4:36 pm
Greg, you’ve beautifully demonstrated the associations you’ve asserted. It’s making Joe responsible for the third step in the association chain because of *what he didn’t say in this particular post* about corporate welfare that makes your point weak.
February 28th, 2011 | 9:49 am
Bob G – “But a lousy quote from that archbishop. Do what’s for the common good? Of course. But that’s what the struggle is all about.”
Archbishop Listecki’ actual quote – “Catholic social teaching calls that the just solution to the conflict be one which provides the greatest common good.”
Leave out one word in the phrase like you did and it indeed sounds mediocre. Listecki also reminded those to whom he spoke of Catholic teaching supporting worker’s rights to organize into labor unions and how their rights to do so must not be taken away by the government. It was well-balanced and more nuanced than my use of it evidently suggested to you.
If state employees bring the governor down on this attempt to make up budget defecits, where does the state go next to look for cuts? To Medicaid-type funding of health care for poor and uninsured families? To the university system? To local and county government funding? To AFDC and other programs of welfare subsidies? The defecits are real – cuts must be made somewhere.
I applaud Archbishop Listecki’s indirect call to understand that cuts to programs that aid the most vulnerable among us must be attempted only when all other methods have been exhausted. The greatest common good is served not by keeping the upper- middle class maintained in the style to which they have becomed accustomed. But those are the conclusions I reached upon hearing his words.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact