After the Wisconsin protests, what?
I think it’s fair to argue, as many labor organizers have done, that Republicans didn’t win their landslide victories last November on a platform of destroying or ham-stringing unions.
How many voters raced to the polls in hopes of eliminating collective bargaining rights or establishing new “right to work” rules?
I’m guessing not very many. But that said, Americans in states like Maine, Michigan and Wisconsin, where huge labor dustups are in the offing, can’t have had any illusions about the class of Republican conservatives they were electing.
The GOP flies under a tea party banner these days and the tea party has promised a major realignment in American society, setting out to role back most of the reforms and laws established under the New Deal and the Great Society.
It’s the American way, of course, for people to gather and protest and shake their fists.
The pro-labor rallies in Wisconsin and around the country are healthy expressions of political sentiment — just as the tea party rallies were.
But I’m skeptical about the liberal movement’s ability to translate all that zeal and hub-bub into the campaign contributions, volunteers and ultimately the votes needed to shift the country’s political momentum.
The GOP made that transition. They took a lot of anger and frustration and turned it into votes. Along the way, they regained the high ground not only in Washington, but in dozens of state capitals around the country.
Even many Democratic governors — including Andrew Cuomo — have adopted many of the right’s basic philosophies, including an aversion to tax increases and a willingness to embrace deep program cuts.
The problem here isn’t that there aren’t plenty of potential Democratic voters out there. Barack Obama proved in 2008 that it’s possible to motivate a huge number of people around the liberal message.
No, the real problem is that the left doesn’t have a coherent language or a vision for where they hope to take us.
Republicans do. They want our government to function (or not function) in a way that’s roughly comparable to the Federal system that existed in the 1930s, playing a much more limited role in our lives.
They are convinced — even when the factual evidence seems to contradict their faith — that this approach will generate more prosperity and more liberty for more people.
So what do the Wisconsin protesters believe? In an annual cost of living increase? In tenure and seniority rules? I don’t think that will cut it.
Napoleon argued that people don’t go to war for “a halfpence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him.”
The same is true for why people go to the polls, and so far the left just doesn’t have an electrifying message.
One hurdle they face, frankly, is that we Americans have short memories. How many tea party protesters have studied what life was like for rank-and-file workers before unions existed?
How many laissez-faire libertarians have sat down to bone up on the Dickensian depths of poverty that existed — especially among our senior citizens — in the good old days before Big Government?
How many people alive today remember life before the Federal interstate highway system, or before the Clean Air Act?
Bluntly, it’s hard to rally people against dangers that no longer seem real, especially when the sagging economy eclipses those issues with more immediate problems.
But unless the Democrats and their allies can translate the hub-bub in Madison into a more coherent big-picture message, one that electrifies and offers a real promise for the future, these protests will do little to slow the GOP’s return to power.
Tags: politics
I would hope that when the coalition of people who voted for Obama realize whats at stake – a potential roll-back of the social safety net “advances” of the past 100 years – that they will get re-energized. The argument for disabling the safety net is generally – we dont need these regulations anymore (Federal child health care protections) because the states are now more responsible – or labor laws (workers are protected etc). Or more recently – we cant afford this stuff (providing an education or health care for the poor). Its a combination of short-sightedness and rosy-tinted historical perspective (mixed with some old-fashioned puritanism – if God wants “them” poor and suffering, who are we to meddle).
Just for a start, I’m old enough to remember on my own and what was told to me from parents and grandparents.
I know about the hell and deaths faced by autoworkers in Detroit before the Big Three listened to their legit demands.
Yes, everything was cheap back in the good old days. So were the wages and benefits.
You could buy a decent house for under $10,000 but you were considered lucky if you made $100 per week.
How about 50 cent an hour minimum wage? Should we return to that?
How about going back to a 90% tax rate on the rich? That would be fun.
People have selective memories. The good old days weren’t all that great.
I remember how long it took to drive someplace before the Interstates. Traffic jams (cars not moving) on summer weekends when folks were going home from the beach.
Does anyone know how to darn socks? Do you even know what it means?
Vacations? That was for the kids and maybe the moms. Not for the dads.
Be careful. You might get what you are asking for!
What people are not not understanding is that under that system, servants are affordable but that most people would be the servants (slight exaggeration) But you can go to virtually any third world country right now and see how the system works (laissez-faire capitalism) .
The Right claimed ownership of “family values.” We submitted ourselves to hectoring and lecturing about how to marry, raise our children, worship, conduct every aspect of our personal lives. This hectoring from people who (at best) were no more successful than the rest of us in practicing marital fidelity, producing healthy and successful children, or practicing moral lives.
Now the Right claims ownership of “fiscal responsibility.” No. Not this time. This is craziness and I’m just not going to do it. I am very aware of the economic challenges facing this nation and am prepared both to contribute and to insist that others contribute to meeting these challenges. But no more hectoring and lecturing from people who gave us a decade of “Bush tax cuts,” unfunded war, de-regulation — and then blamed President Obama when the economy collapsed — and now want more of the same. Not from people who want to dismantle public education because of their “concern” for future generations. No; just flat no.
I agree, Brian, that the rest of us need a better organizing narrative. I think most of us know how/where to increase revenues, decrease spending, and invest for the future. Personally, I’m beginning my own narrative with a simple concept: “Hell No.”
Just to add a little perspective to the popular perception of the GOP “landslide” or “shellacking”… If you look at actual votes, Republicans won only 51.6% of the overall vote in House races and 49.3% of the overall vote in Senate races. Enough to gain seats in the latter and win the former no doubt but hardly an overwhelming victory on which to base radical changes. The GOP is clearly overestimating the strength of their mandate and will likely suffer in 2012.
Brian M. ‘s analysis is correct, in terms of the voters having short memories, and the “left” needing to develop a coherent message. But other factors must also be considered.
1. The massive, and expensive, efforts, starting about 1970, funded by the reactionaries to roll back the the gains of the Twentieth Century. The Koch Brothers alone funded everything from think tanks to the Tea Party,
pushing the message of reducing government, regulation, and taxes.
2. The Obama/Congressional Dems half-baked post-2008 efforts to reform the financial system and generate recovery. Had they demanded a recovery effort equal to the need (see Paul Krugman), we would have had much lower unemployment in Nov. of last year. Likewise, a more vigorous financial reform program, and serious prosecutions of the banking kleptocracy, voters of would have responded. The ultimate was the refusal of the Senate leadersio to take up non-renewal of the Bush millionaire tax cuts BEFORE the election. Of course, expecting Obama & Congressional Dems to do these is like expecting African grazing animals to attack the lions and hyenas that feed off them. I voted for a Roosevelt and got a Buchanan.
Folks voted as they did in November, giving Republicans a second chance, not a mandate, People may not be saying much, but they are watching closely. Their concern was jobs. What are the Republicans doing to move that agenda item forward? I suspect that we are seeing more political volatility than Brian suggests. We may well be in for a period where the pendulum swings back and forth every two years. Also the big government narrative is breaking down. Even the WSJ and Financial times are beginning to talk about how high oil prices triggered the 2008 debacle. While the financial crisis happened at the same time, once attention is focused on the role of high energy prices, somehow the belief that government regulation and taxes are our major concerns is lose its power.
If you think the right are laissez-faire libertarians, and are going to pin the consequeses of it on them, then you have to agree that Obama, and the left, are socialists, and pin the historical consequenses of socialism on them.
If you’re going to take one position to it’s extremem, then intellectuall honesty requries you do it to both. Otherwise, all of these arguments are straw-men.
Interesting how all the comments are from the left..could it be true that NPR leans that way as well?
Brian M, with respect, I find this statement to be a complete exaggeration- “The GOP flies under a tea party banner these days and the tea party has promised a major realignment in American society, setting out to role back most of the reforms and laws established under the New Deal and the Great Society.”
Where do you get that? The implication is that conservatives are out to bring us back to the Great Depression, segregation, women being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. That’s simply not true at all. Fiscal responsibility and a more limited role for the Federal Gov’t in our lives is not the same as gutting worker and environmental protections. No one I know of on the right is out to put Nana and Poppa out on the street or see children starving in the gutter. No one is out to outlaw unions either, but there should be limits to what a public employees union should be capable of doing too.
I can accept differing views of things, but lets try and stick with reality, shall we?
The issue for Wisconsin and other states is not all unions, but public sector unions. This system is terribly broken. In a private sector union if a company negotiates something (like wages or benefits) to a level that puts them out of business then both management and workers lose their shirts collectively. In the public sector the normal dynamic that makes things work propely is missing. Politicians who negotiate with the unions are too distant from the results of their negotiaitions. All the know is that if they give the unions what they want they get the vote. Foregt about the fact that it sinks the ship over the long term. The politicians that have been working with the unions are really to blame in allowing things to get this out of hand.
One thing for certain is that democrats are terrified with what is happening in Wisconsin. That is why even Obama has weighed in. If this were to spread that could be the end of the democratic party for a very long time. Without union support they would be in serious trouble nationally.
Bret – no one is accusing the conservatives of wanting to bring back segregation or make women go back to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen (although they fought tooth and nail against the government doing anything about them in the first place.) On the other hand, you guys do want to go back to the Great Depression. You can check out history books, but boom and bust cycles are the hallmarks of laissez-faire capitalism. And although you dont want to put Nana and Poppa out on the street or see children starving in the gutter, you arent willing to do anything to prevent it either.
Paul – according to the conservative David Brooks, unionized public workers only make 5% more than their non-unionized counterparts. Many studies have also shown that public workers are paid, on average, about 20% less than their private sector counterparts. Thats on average. The lower paid state workers are paid a little more than in the private sector (mostly benefits) but the higher paid ones are paid less. It is well known, for example,that the district attorneys are paid less than their defense attorney adversaries. But that is true of the state employed doctors, university professors, lawyers accountants etc. The point is that the state workers are not the problem, although they are a convenient scapegoat.
Rick: Ah yes, when you have no argument, moan about “bias.” Thanks for the insightful contribution.
Countries which have adopted state planned governments have been uniformly behind those which have not, that is history. Freedom and individual liberty are part and parcel of a free market system.
However I would agree that Republicans are often not supportive of a free market system, it is not a free market system to have a huge Industrial Defense industry funded by taxpayers, it is not a free market system to give subsidies to large corporations for mineral rights on public lands etc.
Did the rise of India and China come about because of socialism or the rejection of socialism? The market is what is making these countries wealthier today, the market is what reduces poverty.
Sure we need a safety net and we need a better one, but big state budgets don’t provide safety nets and they don’t reduce poverty, witness our own state.
I would like to know where these Unions think the money is going to come from to keep paying everything they want paid? Why do I pay my own healthcare and retirement and pay for yours? why is it too much to ask for you to pay some of yours?
Has anyone realized that the Unions were the downfall of the auto industry? Really-what company can pay what all the unions demand and still be able to make a profit? Unions protect the lazy!
I say if they don’t want to agree to this bill, start sending out pink slips-the choice is yours people. It would be nice just to pay and pay, but WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM????? no agreement, start lay offs to help the budget. which would be better??
Phan, yeah, I keep forgetting those famous Republicans like George Wallace, Albert Gore Sr and Woodrow Wilson were so segregationist. BTW, if you leave more money in the individuals pocket then they have more money to support Nana and Poppa and the poor in their communities. That’s a far more equitable way of doing things than stealing from people and using that taxpayer money to buy votes.
Thank you, Paul, for bringing some rational perspective to this discussion. Many of the respondents seem to be under the spell of the union media blitz of propaganda about the issues in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Here are two questions I have been asking and which, to my surprise, most people get wrong.
1. Does the proposed GOP law in Wisconsin take away the right of Wisconsin government workers to bargain colletively for their wages?
2. Obama, as president, is a chief executive. (a) Do his employees, i.e. Federal government employees, get to collectively bargain for their salaries? (b) What can they bargain collectively for?
Instead of generalized blather, let’s discuss the specific issues.
Mervel, I would agree many so called Republicans aren’t behind a free market system. All the price controls and supports, minimum wage, forced insurance and union participation, laws either supporting or strictly limiting certain industries, all that leads to an artificial system, not a free market. Things don’t need to completely laissez faire, but neither do they need to be made “fair” by politicians with a financial interest in the outcome.
That’s the problem with letting Gov’t protrude too far into our lives, they bring as much harm as good.
Bret – yes there were conservative southern Democrats (who have mostly switched to the Republican party) – but they were and remain conservatives. Al Gore Sr was a southerner and Woodrow Wilson was just a long time ago. Not sure how your “stealing from people and using that taxpayer money to buy votes” metaphor works – I assume it has something to do with people making better choices about spending decisions than governments – but historically Nana and Poppa are better off with government help than relying on the kindness of strangers.
Wait til States like Wisconsin and Maine start cutting the benefits of retired state employees. I wonder how many people will change their tune when that happens?
I applaud the governor’s actions and so do a substantial number of Wisconsins and other Americans….even POSSIBLY a majority. So we agree to disagree. Have some respect. Don’t make ridiculous judgements of people who don’t share your position and suggest that you KNOW why most people voted Republican in the last election.
I read these forums fairly often and so I’m sure you’ll just write me off as an uneducated tea partier – or its crass variant term that liberals find so acceptable. You’ll brand me as an unenlightened, hateful dullard who foolishly gets ‘all his news from Fox’ instead of trusted, objective sources like NPR and HuffPo.
I read this piece and the lion’s share of the replies and find it absolutely shameful that NPR receives government funding.
But you know Phan, for me I don’t see any connection anymore between the protestors I see in Wisconsin etc, and providing a decent safety net for our poor and vulnerable. To me its just all about getting mine, for both the unions and the corporations, I don’t see any of those protestors nor do I see any of the corporate lobbyists worried about providing a safety net to people who need it in the form of food, clothing and shelter. To me they are all the same just one more interest group wanting to make sure they get a good deal from the government be they Goldman Sachs or SEIU.
We really do need a safety net in fact we need to strengthen our safety net I don’t think reducing the power of government unions will hurt our safety net at all and in fact may improve it.
“I read this piece and the lion’s share of the replies and find it absolutely shameful that NPR receives government funding.”
Because it doesn’t agree with your point of view?
Seems a little silly to come here preaching respect for different opinions and then end with that doozy.
Fcontrone – there are lots of polls out there. I think we have a pretty good idea of how many Americans/Wisconsonites support your governor, and why the Republicans voted the way they did. There are people on this forum who agree with your governor as well.
phahn50, I never said that public sector employees were highly paid, how did you pull that out of my comment?
You can only negotiate relative to what you can afford. Historically that has not been happening in many public sectors.
“I read this piece and the lion’s share of the replies and find it absolutely shameful that NPR receives government funding.”
Because it doesn’t agree with your point of view?
Seems a little silly to come here preaching respect for different opinions and then end with that doozy.
++++++++++++++++
*Sigh* No Dave. It’s because NPR presents a highly disportionate amount of left-leaning news coverage and other content. Generally speaking, is there ANYONE out there, who in their heart of hearts disagrees with that assertion? Conversely, this is not unlike the Fox News coverage you all abhor and denegrate. The difference is NPR is funded in part by my tax dollars. If FOX were, I’d find that VERY troubling too because I am a fair-minded person.
Slate magazine, Dan Shore, Nina Totenberg, Juan Williams, Ira Glass, Michael Feldman, Gary Keiler, Jim Fleming, and the list goes on and on and on and on…….. Is there ANY conservative on staff at NPR or involved in their weekend, non-news programming? I can’t think of a single one. Juan Williams was the most notable, fair-minded person and again, he’s a liberal albeit a very moderate one. Frankly, I think both sides of the aisle need people like him. And what happened? He was fired and yet to be replaced.
I recall listening to Neil Conan last year having a discussion about Fox News and reading an email from someone criticizing NPR for having relatively few conservative listeners. Conan defended the station saying they have a great number of conservative fans. Well, guess what? EVERY SINGLE CALLER ON THAT PROGRAM BASHED CONSERVATIVE MEDIA. How ridiculous.
And Phahn50, to your comment that “There are people on this forum who agree with your governor as well.”
I know there are…..and they’re outnumbered about 10 to one by my count! As long as it swings the liberal way, it doesn’t seem to bother anyone here. But I digress. I have to get back to my fair-paying, non-union, unprotected position that I obtained and maintain solely by my hard work…..because if I don’t complete my duties, I’ll rightfully be fired by my wealthy, highly successful and laudable boss. Ciao.
There are bigger issues in play here. This is not just about partisan politics, wages, and workers rights. It is happening world wide and concerns the evolution or extinction of the human spirit. Personally, I choose evolution. Kinda looks like Armaggedon has begun. My advice, if you want to invoke change use the most powerful force you have: THINK IT.
Just because NPR doesn’t employ certified conservatives doesn’t make its news coverage liberal. And just because a network or channel is not as far out to the right as FOX doesn’t make it liberal. Conservatives don’t like NPR because they can’t handle the truth.
Fcontrone – congratulations on being solely responsible for your success in life. And of course for the poor or unemployed it must be their own damned fault.
With the success of corporations and conservatives in drastically reducing the number of union workers in the private sector the past thirty years and the subsequent decline of middle class economic security, health care and retirement benefits it is very sad to see private sector workers wish the same for public sector workers. Conservatives have been quite successful at promoting intra-middle class warfare. While the top 1% rich have been accumulating 95% of the country’s wealth too many of the rest of us seem more interested in a race to see who gets to the bottom first.
“I know about the hell and deaths faced by autoworkers in Detroit before the Big Three listened to their legit demands.” I am also sure you are old enough to remember when The UAW played a role in almost bankrupting two of the big 3 auto makers who then went to the federal government to be bailed out. I’m also sure you will recall how Obama help screw over employees and union members of GMC. But we aren’t talking about private unions or private jobs.
We are talking about public unions and public jobs. That’s who this Wisconsin hub-bub involves. Now only a minority of citizens of that state have the jobs or are in those unions. Those employees make alot of money. Get cheap benefits (cheap to them). they can even retire after 25 years. Now unlike UAW and the employees that work with it these public unions employees are paid for by the Tax payers of that state. Not all states have those rights. You know the right to screw over their fellow tax payer by keeping their job when they are no longer needed.
“Because it doesn’t agree with your point of view?”
“*Sigh* No Dave. It’s because NPR presents a highly disportionate amount of left-leaning news coverage and other content.”
Gotcha… so you do not think NPR should be funded because in your opinion it doesn’t present coverage that agrees often enough with your right-leaning views…
And that is different from what I said how?
Scott Walker is just a pawn in a Pinky and the Brain scheme. Yes, he has his own power trip (and likely greed) driving him, but, he is just a part of the plan. In order for Walker to get what he wants, he has to dump all over America. He had promises or “gratitude” to those who made this position possible for him (as always in politics). Taking all the strange and cruel things the Republicans have been doing into account, and what is going on in Wisconsin and around the red States, I think it is EASY to see what is happening.
I know those rich who support the Republicans at election time are now being paid back by the Republicans. Keep in mind, corporations sent millions of jobs over seas for greed. For lower wages. Remember all the debate about getting these corporations to bring the jobs back always ended in wages/expenses are to high. (Even though we know the BILLIONS many of these corporations pocketed.) On several occasions lately we heard from Republicans, EVEN AFTER PROMISES OF JOBS at election time…. Boehner, if we lose jobs “so be it” and others recently saying the same type comments which Rachel Maddow pointed out. Look at the TOTAL numbers of unemployed this will leave us with.
So, this is how the Republicans pay those who are responsible for putting them in office back. Lower wages and have ready and available employees, for the corporations to bring jobs back. You cannot lower wages without busting unions and changing the entire standard wage system. SO THEY ARE BUSTING THE UNIONS. One step at a time, the private sector will be next if they get this bill of Walker’s through, they figured they could do it in every state, and they TRIED. They hit a few bumps in the road, but this plan is clear. Millions of unemployed people who are willing to do anything for work, and nothing to prevent these greedy corporations from paying the lower wages they had asked for all along.
Kill the jobs, lower wages, bring back business, and the rich have us right where they want us. Take it or leave it. Not enough income to keep up with the bills, lose more homes, hand them over to the rich, pay the rich rent, and…. lets not forget what the products are that these particular rich in the news (Koch) are selling…. ESSENTIAL ITEMS… gas, power, straight on down to the toilet paper we need to purchase. (Remember Walker’s bill also had some sort of law to privatize the utilitie plants, giving him the right to sell them without a bidding process for whatever dollar amount he wanted. The Koch’s denied that they wanted the plants, maybe a lie, and maybe it is planned for someone else who Walker owes “gratitude” to.)
While the people will not be able to afford anything but necessities, where does this leave small business?
Mervel re:”To me they are all the same just one more interest group wanting to make sure they get a good deal from the government be they Goldman Sachs or SEIU.” There is some truth to that of course. The Union officers were elected to get the best deal for their members they can. Goldman Sachs officers want the best for their shareholders.
But what the main function of public employee unions is to make sure the mutually agreed-upon rules are followed.
This is amazing! According to TessTyFy anyone and everyone who is “rich” in America is a Republican! What utter tripe. GOt news for ya, rich Democrats sent just as many jobs overseas and fight the unions just as much as rich Repubs. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs aren’t exactly paragons of Americanism, now are they?
Phan, Nana and Poppa would be better off if they had their own money, if their SS wasn’t taxed as income, if taxes weren’t so high over all. And if you can’t make the leap about using taxpayer funding to get re-elected…well, think about.
Bret – Nana and Poppa would be better off if they were really rich (as would we all), but what happens if they are poor? The poor dont pay taxes (federal income tax). If all they get is SS, then their only support is government tax-financed assistance. If they didnt get Social Security what then?
Interesting how we have all this controversy over the labor issue in this Wisconsin bill but hardly even a peep from the media or the public about the just as controversial (in my opinion) item to allow the sale, through a no-bid process, of state assets:
16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state-owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).
Speaking of the news, why complain about the viewpoint clearly expressed or hidden if you have half a brain?
The messenger has a right to express their opinion. It is up to you to sort it out and arrive at your own opinion. It is your duty, not theirs.
Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?”
Jesus was smart enough not to reply.
“Conservatives don’t like NPR because they can’t handle the truth.”
I am kind of conservative and I like NPR? Isn’t the last part of this statement copyrighted by whoever owns the movie A Few Good Men?
Paul – I would reword that to say that people who like NPR news like balanced in depth coverage and can handle the truth. Some conservatives fall into this category – but many dont.
Phan, then family steps in, just we do in our family. And neighbors assist too, as does their church. This is all very real for my family, not some mental exercise. My original point was that the idea that without gov’t being there to fund things (the taxpayer actually) then nothing would ever get done…well, I don’t buy that. We currently have a huge social safety network that apparently is letting millions sift through the cracks. Is more of the same the answer? Maybe putting some of the responsibility back at a more local level would be more efficient.
BTW, SS is taxed as income, really. Look into it.
phan,
Yes I do agree. The problem is not with the unions they are doing what they are supposed to do, the problem is with the people negotiating with the unions. Collective bargaining should not be changed I am not really sure that is even constitutional? But regardless if you don’t like the deal the unions have then negotiate different deals.
bret – I know SS is taxed, but low incomes are not. so if your only income is SS you probably dont pay any federal income tax although you certainly pay sales tax and maybe property tax. My point is that the safety net is designed to take some of the burden off the families or to keep people from having to go to the poor house or charities. Could the system be better and cheaper at the same time? I dont think anyone would argue that.
But again – in third world countries with no safety net, people literally die in the streets. (if you die in the hospital, you have to pay to get the body out). Their families do what they can, but frequently thats virtually nothing.
and Mervel – I agree completely
Regarding public unions and collective bargaining. In NYS we have what is known as the Triborough Amendment, a law which state that once a collective bargaining agreement has expired the terms of that agreement remain in place until a new agreement is negotiated. What this means is that once a public employer has agreed to things like no layoffs provisions and free health care, those things are hard to change in future agreements. Court have interpreted Triborough as requiring automatic step and longevity pay increases once an agreement has expired. Needless to say those things can make controlling costs because the unions can always just say no.
Unions have also been effective in getting the legislature in passing laws that benefit government workers at the expense of public employers, undermining the whole process of collective bargaining and tilting things in favor of government workers. Pension sweeteners, seniority rights, paid days off for breast cancer/prostate screening and giving blood, tenure, binding arbitration for uniformed personnel, and many more privileges are afforded to NY public employees but denied to private employees. The status quo is simply unaffordable and must change.
scratchy – what are pension sweetners?
The Triborough Amendment is not automatically an advantage for employees. There are plenty of times when the employer benefits from any delays in a new contract.
” Pension sweeteners, seniority rights, paid days off for breast cancer/prostate screening and giving blood, tenure, binding arbitration for uniformed personnel, and many more privileges are afforded to NY public employees but denied to private employees. The status quo is simply unaffordable and must change.”
Those things are not causing fiscal deficits. And it is unfortunate if private workers are denied some of those health benefits and better job security.
Pension sweeteners is a term for legislation that improves pension benefits for public employees. A famous example is Pataki era legislation that exempted public employees with 10 or more years of service from having to contribute to the pension fund. As a result of that mistake, governments have had to contribute substantially more to the pension fund to make up for the lack of employee contributions. This led to higher local property and state taxes, with recent reports showing NY as having the worst business tax climate and teh second highest per person burden in the nation. The legislature has passed several other more narrowly tailored sweeteners over the years with some of them being vetoed and others signed into law. I’m not opposed to pensions, but i don’t think it’s unreasonable for employees to contribute something to the cost of pensions. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to bear the entire burden, they already pay more than their fair share.
Some of these employee mandates don’t make a lot of sense. Breast and prostate cancer screening are important, but do school employees need a special day of when they already get half the year off? THere’s plenty of time to take cancer screening in the summer weeks. Whenever a teacher takes this time off during the school year, the district has to hire a substitute and students miss a day of real learning. I don’t think that law makes a lot sense given the amount of time teachers already get off.
At that same time Pataki was also cutting state income taxes which mostly benefitted the wealthy. And, state and local government contributions to the pension fund actually went down. All because of a booming stock market. Instead of building up reserves for a rainy day the politicians assumed prosperity would never end and gave out “sweeteners” to everyone. Also, pensions are part of total compensation, essentially deferred compensation. There were plenty of years when state employees received no salary raises or well below cost of living increases.
In recognition of the economic downturn public employees will now again contribute directly to the pension fund for their entire career as well as raising the retirement age. Isn’t it time for the wealthy to contribute also and accept raising income tax rates back to where they used to be?
Phan, I wouldn’t argue about 3rd world countries, but last I checked we didn’t qualify as a 3rd world country. The system we currently have needs to be more efficient, would you at least agree with that? We have redundant social welfare programs, we have duplication at state and Federal levels in some cases, we have fraud and waste that needs addressing. I don’t believe that if the Federal funding dried up everything would grind to a halt and people would be dying in the streets, jut as I don’t believe that if we tripled Federal funding everything would be solved.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172942399165436.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
Good places to start cutting.
Bret4207 says
“The implication is that conservatives are out to bring us back to the Great Depression, segregation, women being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. That’s simply not true at all.”
Let’s be reality based. Hungry, homeless, and hypothermic poor people is exactly what many conservatives want. Remember this is the “ketchup is vegetable” crowd! Were do the conservatives want to cut? HEAP which helps the working poor stay warm. Food Stamps which helps the poor avoid hunger. Cut the school breakfast and lunch programs. They want to cut Medicare and Medicaid. They want to do away with the minimum wage. They increasingly want to do away with the current child labor laws. They want to destroy the unions. Many of the conservatives I have dealt during my many years of try to help the working poor has lead me to the conclusion that they live in the constant fear that somewhere a poor child is going to sleep in a warm bed with a full belly!