Pro-Walker Redux

(Warning… much of this post is repeated content from prior posts. But, since I keep having the same conversations, and this stuff just keeps swirling around in my mind, it seems only fair to inflict it upon you again, and again, and again.)

Just this past weekend, I had another conversation with a Madisonian who hopes Gov. Walker gets recalled.

So, here’s a quick run-down of my friend’s three main criticisms/accusations, and my responses.

Accusation 1: Walker has been less than honest about this whole “strip the unions of power” bill. He didn’t mention it during the campaign. So (apparently) he shouldn’t be pursuing it now that he's in office.

Response A: First, remember… This bill only addresses public-sector unions; let’s not forget the “public-sector” delimiter. What happens in the private sector unions is of no concern to Walker or any of us Conservatives.

Response B: We humans are funny creatures. We frequently complain about politicians who too many promises during campaigns… promises which they can’t possibly deliver. Now, we are apparently complaining because politicians don’t unveil their entire legislative agenda. Some folks are hard to please.

Response C: Personally, it neither surprises me nor concerns me that a politician might have a big idea like this up his sleeve, and not mention it during the campaign. “Why!?”, you might ask. Answer: He would have known during the campaign that there is no way a bill like this could survive without a Republican majority in both houses of the legislature.

When Governor Walker’s campaign started, the Democrats had control of both chambers of the state legislature. All through his campaign, up until Election Day, Walker had no way of knowing that the Republicans were going to win control of both houses. Without that fore-knowledge, why in the world would he have mentioned such a divisive concept during the campaign?

That would be like me interviewing for a job at Company ABC. But, I tell the HR director, “Oh, just so you know, I kinda have my eye on a job with Company XYZ. So, if I you hire me, and then, I get a better offer from Company XYZ, I’m going to jump ship and leave you high and dry. But, for now, since I don’t really know if it’s going to work out with Company XYZ, can you and I go ahead with this interview process?”

Why would I do that? Why would I tip my hand? I might think about it. I might fantasize about it. Heck, I might even act upon it (by arranging for a clandestine interview with Company XYZ). But, I’m surely not going to say anything about it to Company ABC. That way, if Company XYZ doesn’t work out, I can go back to Company ABC, and make the best of it; no one has to know my heart was with Company XYZ.

I don’t doubt that Walker was thrilled to see the Republicans gain control of both houses of the state legislature. And, once he saw that consolidation of power, I’m sure that he jumped on the opportunity and moved quite quickly to get that legislation moving through the system.

Accusation 2: When being interrogated by the US Congress, Walker even admitted that there were no instantaneous savings to be realized by revoking most of the collective bargaining rights for public employees: “Walker actually admitted it! It doesn’t save us anything. This just proves that he only wants to bust the unions.”

Response A: Why is the US federal government interrogating a duly-elected governor about how he is executing his responsibilities within his state? Isn’t that the role of the voters of that state?

Response B: Let’s remember that public-sector unions didn’t exist until 50 years ago. 24 states in the union either don’t have ANY collective bargaining for their public employees, or have less collective bargaining for their public employees than we offer(ed) here in Wisconsin. And, oh yeah… federal employees don’t have collective bargaining powers, either. (And on a related note, President Obama recently instituted a pay freeze for two years for all federal employees as a way to manage unexpected budgetary shortfalls. Hmm. That's curious, isn't it?)

But, now you’re telling me these unions are sacrosanct, never to be threatened? Ugh.

Response C: Let’s say we have an obese person. Let’s say that obese person decides to lose some weight. And, as part of his efforts to lose weight, he decides to stop eating donuts. Using the same logic applied in this accusation, I could walk up to that obese man and ask, “So, Mr. Obese-man, how does NOT eating this donut make you lose weight?!” Answer: It doesn’t.

NOT eating a donut doesn’t MAKE you lose weight. “Hah! So, your stance on eating that donut is a farce! You SAY that it’s about losing weight. But, it’s not really about weight. You just hate donut-makers…(??? I dunno. My analogy breaks down there.) So, Mr. Obese-man, you should quit with the charade, and go ahead! EAT THE DONUT!"

No, by choosing to NOT eat a donut, the obese man is not going to instantaneously lose weight.

But wouldn’t it be more accurate to recognize that, “If the goal is losing weight, it is going to be harder to attain that goal if he continues to eat donuts”? Right? Can we agree on that?

Refraining from eating a donut does not make us lose weight; it makes it easier to lose weight over time. Cutting up a credit card doesn’t pay off our bill; it makes it easier to reduce our debt balance over time.

Similarly, by revoking collective bargaining for public-sector employees… that single act does not SAVE us money. But, it does make it easier for us to regain control over our budgetary imbalance. This happens by allowing the state, county and local governments flexibility in how they will respond to the inevitable down-turns in the economy (in exactly the way that was demonstrated by the President of the United States regarding his pay-freeze for all federal employees). If collective bargaining is left in place, that will mean that 60% of most local governmental budgets are automatically taken off the table of consideration for reform. In ANY business model, that’s crippling. It would be like saying, we’re going to fix the federal budget, but we’re not going to touch the Big Three (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). You can’t do it.

In fact, have you heard about the news fresh out of Milwaukee this week (May 5, 2011)? The Milwaukee Public School system is going to layoff 1,000 staff members. Why? Ans: Budgetary shortfall. Could they have saved some of those jobs by imposing a slight reduction in salary and benefits? Sure thing. (NOTE: That’s what happens in the private sector all the time.) But, collective bargaining prohibits tampering with the pay and benefits landscape. So, payroll is left untouched. Benefits are left untouched. Instead, we have to hack personnel… 1,000 layoffs! Of course, that means the workload from those laid off employees will get shifted to the remaining staff. Well, at least they still have a job, right? (That’s good, I suppose, as long as you’re not one of those poor, unfortunate 1,000.)

Accusation #3 (the last one for this post): I was exclaiming to my friend about the need for this aggressive reform. I stated, “There is no way the union will make these changes on their own. They simply will NOT give any ground on their compensation packages.” My friend rebutted, “That’s not true, Cliff. They made it very clear that they were willing to give in on the two major issues” (i.e. paying for a below-private-sector average on their retirement, and below-half-of-private-sector average health care) “So, the fact that Walker went ahead with this bill shows that he was only interested in busting the union.”

Response A: Let’s ask ourselves… Exactly WHY were the unions willing to accept these reductions in benefits? Was it not because Walker and the Republican legislature held a gun to their head and made it clear that they (the Republicans) weren’t going to be played like their Democrat predecessors? Was it not because the unions saw that public opinion was (finally!) turning against them? In these recessed times, the average Wisconsin tax-payer is seeing all manner of hardship in the economy: job uncertainty, pay freezes, reductions in 401K company-match amounts, increases in health care premiums. All the while, their state-employee counterparts were enjoying iron-clad job security, 100% employer-payment of a FIXED-BENEFIT retirement package, and fantastic health-care packages with employee-paid premiums WELL below national private-sector averages.

So, finally, the tax payer wises up, and begins turning a scrutinizing eye towards the unions. The new political power-players (Republicans) were resisting the union pleas for “justice”. So, sure! NOW the unions decide, out of the goodness of their ever-loving hearts, that they will give in on the concessions.

The honest fact is… They only accepted these concessions because they were against a wall. They had nothing to lose.

If we are to believe these unions are so magnanimous… so honorable… I’ll simply ask, Why didn’t they make the concessions on their own, two years ago, when the economy started to falter? (And, I’m not trying to say “two years” to pin anything on President Obama. I am simply referencing the time when the banking- and real-estate-bubbles burst.) Why didn’t these public-sector unionized saints step forward then, in a self-managing sort of way… with their pulse on the national economy, and voluntarily offer up the concessions that Walker and the Reps insisted upon in this current bill?

ANS: They didn’t make these voluntary concessions because THAT’S NOT WHAT UNIONS DO.

The single, irresistible purpose of the union (ANY union) is to first serve itself, and then to serve its members. That is true of all unions everywhere. Unions are NOT designed to keep one eye on the interest of their union members, and the other eye on the current economy. To ask a union to voluntarily police itself and give up any power or benefits is to ask a giraffe to be short, or a possum to be cute. It simply cannot be done.

At least, in the private sector, the unions have to battle with their natural enemy, i.e. Management. In the public sector, there is no such "natural enemy." There is no ever-present obstruction to the union. Instead, they have a political Opponent who can be all-to-easily swayed by the spending of tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

Which leads to…

Response B: Let’s say the unions give in on these concessions… and Walker backs down and leaves the unions in place with all of their collective bargaining intact.

What is going to happen in two years? In five years?

If we don’t disband the unions… or, as Walker’s bill does, strip them of most of their collective bargaining powers… what happens?

ANS: After another election cycle or two, a couple things will happen. First, we will likely see the pendulum swing on the political majorities in the state legislature. Maybe not both houses, and maybe not by much. But, eventually the Democrats will regain control of one or both of the houses.

Also, during that two- or five-year span, the national spotlight will have moved onto some new hot-topic news story. The good citizens of Wisconsin will have dropped their guard, having grown tired of the eternal battle with the socialist-state., and the quasi-marxist protestors.

So, with a return of union-friendly Democrats into our political structure… and with a general reduction of scrutiny over the doings of the public-sector unions… what do you think we might see happening… IF the public-sector unions were left in place? Hmmm…?

These unions, who right now, want us all to believe they are making their sacrifice for the sake of Wisconsin’s economy (by agreeing to the two primary concessions)… because of their intense awareness of the downturn in the current economy… what will that union do, when the winds shift, and the tempers cool, and and the spotlights are turned off?

ANS: They will do what ALL unions do. The Phoenix will rise again. The Beast will return. And, I can guarantee you that, before my daughter graduates from high school, (eight years) these public-sector unions will be back in full force, pounding the bargaining table, insisting upon the reinstatement of all these concessions. They will declaim the horrors of the previous X years. They will talk about how, “We paid our share! We made our sacrifices!” They’ll tell us about how it’s all for the children, or the sick people, or the poor people. And, any fair and just society would reinstate their AWESOME benefits package because they deserve it.

And then… we, the state of Wisconsin, are right back where we started.

No… I am sorry. I simply cannot trust the public-sector unions to keep a truly objective perspective for the rest of eternity, and to keep their union bargaining hounds at bay, and to be their own policing authority. Nor can I wait another 75 years for another political aligning-of-the-stars: We have a governor who is prepared to stake his career on doing this ugly deed now, and we have a number of Republicans in the majority of both houses of the state legislature who are already facing extreme heat for their unpopular votes on this bill.

It’s gotta be done. And, it’s gotta to be done now. Stand with Walker.