Thank goodness the unions offer some balance to the corporate special interest in terms of politics and influence. While the corporate special interest has far more influence and gives far more money to buy that influence the unions at least have a presence in the game to help provide some balance.
Public-sector unions are funded by taxpayer cash, since member salaries, and therefore union dues, come directly from state budgets. The Trouble with Public Sector Unions http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions The emergence of powerful public-sector unions was by no means inevitable. Prior to the 1950s, as labor lawyer Ida Klaus remarked in 1965, "the subject of labor relations in public employment could not have meant less to more people, both in and out of government." To the extent that people thought about it, most politicians, labor leaders, economists, and judges opposed collective bargaining in the public sector. Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable." Roosevelt was hardly alone in holding these views, even among the champions of organized labor. Indeed, the first president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government."
WI Assembly GOP Passes Walker Budget In Surprise Vote -- Dems Chant "Shame!" MADISON, WI -- The Wisconsin State Assembly has just passed Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, including its controversial provisions to eliminate almost all collective bargaining rights for public employee unions as well as many other provisions to weaken union organizing. After much buildup in the 61-hour debate -- of Republicans wanting things to be over, and Democrats railing against Republicans who they said would cut off debate -- at about 1 AM Speaker Pro Tempore Bill Kramer (R) announced that he would hear a voice vote for a roll call on final passage. Immediately, the majority Republicans shouted their ayes, and the Democrats were booing, as they tried to be recognized to demand a separate motion to cut off debate. Then Kramer called the vote. Within seconds, the digital vote system on the wall announced 51 ayes and 17 nays, and voting was suddenly closed. With a total of 96 members, that got to a majority for the bill but left 28 members who hadn't had a chance yet to vote. At that point, the Democrats got up, chanting "Shame! Shame! Shame!" and similar exclamations, as the Republicans filed out of the room. There were many Democrats I spoke to and overheard in the chamber, who said they didn't get a chance to vote, or that they were pushing the "No" button at their desks as hard as they could -- keep in mind that a majority of their 38-member caucus was recorded as casting no votes at all. (Interesting to note there were also four Republicans who voted no -- after having joined every party-line vote against Democratic amendments. Some Dems speculated that the GOP leadership had allowed some Assembly Republicans in marginal districts to skip the vote or vote 'no' on the final tally.)
This is peculiar to me. Are people suggesting that the Republican legislators, who hold a pretty substantial majority, should not have voted on the bill they authored because they didn't have unanimous agreement? I really hope Rhad you were making a "Democracy in action, right?" post when Democratic legislators at the national level were using terms like "budget reconciliation" and "nuclear option" when discussing how they were going to get healthcare passed over stiff opposition both in the opposition party AND in the national polls.
Nothing really, just that it's a lot easier for Repubs to win elections where 50% of the electorate turns out (and pronounce it a revolultion!) than one where 70% turns out.
Healthcare passed despite every Republican senator and representative voting against it. If the article is accurate, some WI democrats felt they were not even given the opportunity. Ergo, my comment here and not there.
I see. If somehow the Republicans prevented Democrats from voting on the bill, then I agree with you, it a shame.
that's quite a logic leap. You've been including too many assumptions in your posting lately. Please do better.
Let's see.... an intent to obstruct the operations of the government until their demands are satisfied... the paralysis of government... by those who have sworn to support it... that's unthinkable and intolerable. Got it. Someone tell the Boner in between cries.
Nah, I am employed in the private sector. non-union. nominal contribution to ones' own retirement and all that good stuff. . .
oh my -- <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/orwN4WKhriw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> REAGAN: Ever since martial law was brutally imposed last December, Polish authorities have been assuring the world that they’re interested in a genuine reconciliation with the Polish people. But the Polish regime’s action yesterday reveals the hollowness of its promises. By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union.
