PDA

View Full Version : John Nichols: Walker appeals to GOP’s labor-bashing zealots



JoeChalupa
01-09-2012, 12:53 PM
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/john-nichols-walker-appeals-to-gop-s-labor-bashing-zealots/article_44cde623-bf1d-5b05-92f1-0e2f60b3ab73.html#ixzz1ivKX53AY

MANCHESTER, N.H. — When I asked Newt Gingrich if he planned to campaign for Scott Walker in the recall election the governor will almost certainly face, Newt answered, “Sure!”

“Scott Walker’s fight in Wisconsin has made him a national leader on issues important to Republicans,” said the former House speaker. “Of course I would campaign for him.”

The Republicans who would be president disagree on some issues. But they are pretty much united in their affection for the nation’s most embattled governor.

After Walker attacked public-employee unions last February, Mitt Romney announced he was donating $5,000 to support the Wisconsinite. And Rick Santorum hails Walker’s “tremendous courage.”

What is it about Walker — who is so unpopular that hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites are petitioning for his removal — that makes him so appealing to so many Republicans?

That’s simple. Scott Walker is an anti-union zealot. And anti-union zealotry has become a core premise of the 21st century Republican Party.

Attacks by Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich on public-employee unions may have gotten the most publicity. But other governors, most notably Indiana’s Mitch Daniels, are striving to undermine the collective bargaining rights of private-sector workers.

Here in New Hampshire, Romney has endorsed efforts to pass so-called “right-to-work” legislation, which would impose legal barriers to traditional methods for collecting union dues and providing representation for all employees at a workplace. Gingrich is an enthusiastic proponent of right-to-work laws. Even the most moderate of the GOP contenders, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, is urging New Hampshire voters to gain a “competitive advantage over your neighbors” by passing anti-union legislation.

But the Republicans don’t stop there.

Gingrich says: “One of the things the Congress should do immediately is defund the National Labor Relations Board.” Not to be outdone, Romney is airing a new ad in South Carolina that declares: “The National Labor Relations Board (is) now stacked with union stooges selected by the president.”

Santorum, who has tried to present himself as an ally of working Americans with talk of renewing our manufacturing base, is as militant as Walker when it comes to attacking the collective bargaining rights of public employees. “I do not believe that state, federal or local workers … should be involved in unions,” says Santorum. “I would actually support a bill that says that we should not have public-employee unions for the purposes of wages and benefits to be negotiated.”

Aren’t there any prominent Republicans who think unions make a positive contribution to society?

I found one. This guy says: “Collective bargaining … has played a major role in America’s economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere. Too often, discussion about the labor movement concentrates on disputes, corruption and strikes. But while these things are headlines, there are thousands of good agreements reached and put into practice every year without a hitch.”

Who is this Republican outlier who spoke about “the sacred right of American workers to negotiate their wages”?

A fellow named Ronald Reagan. Some people used to think he was quite a Republican. But Reagan’s no Scott Walker.

John Nichols is the associate editor of The Capital Times. [email protected]


~~The GOP needs to support labor.

DarrinS
01-09-2012, 01:32 PM
[M]eticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

...


Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees.


Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of pubic employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or 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

101A
01-09-2012, 01:32 PM
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/john-nichols-walker-appeals-to-gop-s-labor-bashing-zealots/article_44cde623-bf1d-5b05-92f1-0e2f60b3ab73.html#ixzz1ivKX53AY

MANCHESTER, N.H. ...Aren’t there any prominent Republicans who think unions make a positive contribution to society?...

What a straw man.

Equivalent to anyone who support Obama's proposed military cutbacks being accused of "not ever believing the military has ever served a useful purpose."

Being opposed to PUBLIC employee unions != Being opposed to ALL unions

101A
01-09-2012, 01:35 PM
Thanks, Darrin


All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

The entire argument, expressed eloquently, by one who cannot be assailed for being "anti-union".

boutons_deux
01-09-2012, 02:18 PM
But Repugs are not just against unions of govt employees, they are against ALL unions, and in fact against all employees, the ones whom Willard Gecko "loves to fire".

The fewer there are of employees and the smaller their salaries and benefits, the more money there is for mgmt and investors. A zero sum game. The War on Employees has been wonderfully victorious, with real household income stagnant, or declining, since St Ronnie was elected.

Wild Cobra
01-10-2012, 03:08 AM
Unions have become an organization that has more bad than good. Union workers give up individual bargaining for collective bargaining. The worse worker gets paid as much as the best worker with the same pay grade and step increases.

You call that fair? catering to the lowest common denominator?

I could go on, but those are two of my biggest complaints of unionized work.

ElNono
01-10-2012, 03:28 AM
Thanks, Darrin

The entire argument, expressed eloquently, by one who cannot be assailed for being "anti-union".

Actually, you two should read the entire letter (here (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445#axzz1j2clp4SE))

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry.

What FDR was particularly adamant against was strikes against government, which would force a government shutdown (which IIRC, are already illegal in Wisconsin).

Ultimately, a lot has changed both in labor and in the country overall since 1937, until the Reagan days and these days.

ElNono
01-10-2012, 03:33 AM
Oh, and before somebody throws a tantrum, I'm not an advocate of public unions with the current level of corruption in politics. There shouldn't be a problem for public unions to exist IF the person sitting at the other end of the bargaining table wouldn't have been bought out and would truly represent the interests of the taxpayers.

ElNono
01-10-2012, 03:39 AM
Unions have become an organization that has more bad than good. Union workers give up individual bargaining for collective bargaining. The worse worker gets paid as much as the best worker with the same pay grade and step increases.

You call that fair? catering to the lowest common denominator?

I could go on, but those are two of my biggest complaints of unionized work.

Why do you think unions in general and collective bargaining in particular even exist, if individual bargaining was always the superior choice?

Wild Cobra
01-10-2012, 03:47 AM
Why do you think unions in general and collective bargaining in particular even exist, if individual bargaining was always the superior choice?
There are a few things I can think of. Elimination of employment competition for one. A majority of people already employed will sign away their individual bargaining rights for job security. Not everyone will agree with this mentality, but are then forced to pay union dues, or not work.

ElNono
01-10-2012, 04:00 AM
There are a few things I can think of. Elimination of employment competition for one. A majority of people already employed will sign away their individual bargaining rights for job security. Not everyone will agree with this mentality, but are then forced to pay union dues, or not work.

Uh? Who is forced to join an union?

Also, how is not having a job a superior option to job security? :lol

Wild Cobra
01-10-2012, 04:07 AM
Uh? Who is forced to join an union?
The laws in some states have changed, but some jobs you simply cannot work without paying the union their share.

Also, how is not having a job a superior option to job security? :lol

I never said that, did I.

Collective bargaining should not replace individual bargaining for wages. If someone can show higher performance, they should be given the opportunity to bargain with their employer for more than the average person.

ElNono
01-10-2012, 04:16 AM
The laws in some states have changed, but some jobs you simply cannot work without paying the union their share.

Like what jobs? Who is forced to join an union?


I never said that, did I.

That's the question I asked and that was your response.


Collective bargaining should not replace individual bargaining for wages. If someone can show higher performance, they should be given the opportunity to bargain with their employer for more than the average person.

Well, history has shown that oftentimes employers didn't see fit to reward anything. That's exactly when unions and collective bargaining came around...

Collective bargaining replaced individual bargaining in certain instances simply because individual bargaining doesn't have enough leverage to obtain the best work conditions (be it wages, benefits, etc). In those instances, collective bargaining is the superior option.

All that said, I'm unaware of any laws that restricts a person from bargaining individually if they're not part of an union and that's what they want.

101A
01-10-2012, 10:06 AM
Uh? Who is forced to join an union?

Also, how is not having a job a superior option to job security? :lol

My wife doesn't HAVE to join her union (Pennsylvania Professors), however, 3% of her pay will be with-held for dues regardless, AND she is bound by the CBA.

Tomato Tomata.

101A
01-10-2012, 10:09 AM
...also, as part of that CBA - the UNION reps on campus select a committee of faculty that decides which professors get promotion (to associate/full - not tied to tenure here). The message is clear; support the union, or remain an assistant prof. indefinitely.

101A
01-10-2012, 10:26 AM
Uh? Who is forced to join an union?



Asked and answered, NoNo - comments?

ElNono
01-10-2012, 11:33 AM
Asked and answered, NoNo - comments?

I'm at the doc. Will reply later

ElNono
01-10-2012, 01:42 PM
101A... this strikes at the heart of what I was mentioning earlier. The law in PA (Act 84 of 1988 or Act 15 of 1993) doesn't force the fee collection, it simply makes it an option from the employer. There's plenty of companies that opt not to collect (off the top of my head, I know Verizon to be one), and even a minority of school districts in PA (about 25%) have opted not to. Same thing applies to maintenance of membership or direct dues deduction (these are regulated through Act 195 of 1970). Employers are free not to agree to them.

So what you have is a case of poor/corrupt representation, not a case of mandated union membership. If your wife is unhappy with the fee being collected, she should look into working on a school district that didn't agree to that fee collection.

As far as the union leveraging it's power when it comes to promotion, well, you can't tell me this is just an union problem. We see the same thing everyday in non-union public office environments as well, with family members of elected officials getting cushy jobs. It's flat out corruption as far as I'm concerned.