The opposite of “progressive” — public-employee unions

The Washington Post’s Charles Lane:

The 2012 U.S. elections could be the most exciting and consequential in years. In Wisconsin, we might be looking at political Armageddon. …

For public-sector unions, the [Scott] Walker recall is no mere exercise in payback. The unions, upon which Democrats depend heavily for funding and foot soldiers, say Walker must be ousted and his reforms reversed for the sake of the middle class. Progressive values — even democracy itself — are in mortal danger.

Actually, the opposite is true. The threat to such progressive goals as majority rule, transparent government, a vibrant public sector and equality comes from public-sector unionism. …

Of course, collective bargaining in the public sector is inherently contrary to majority rule. It transfers basic public-policy decisions — namely, the pay and working conditions that taxpayers will offer those who work for them — out of the public square and behind closed doors. Progressive Wisconsin has a robust “open meetings” law covering a wide range of government gatherings except — you guessed it — collective bargaining with municipal or state employees. So much for transparency.

Even worse, to the extent that unions bankroll the campaigns of the officials with whom they will be negotiating — and they often do — they sit on both sides of the table.

Progressives believe, correctly, that government can and should provide such public goods and services as education, parks, or aid for the poor and disabled. It’s axiomatic that the public is entitled to the highest quality at the best possible price. Yet unions, by their nature, increase the price of public services, without necessarily increasing quality. Just ask New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg about the “rubber room” where, until a couple of years ago, hundreds of union teachers languished, on full pay, while awaiting disciplinary hearings.

Which brings us to equality. To be sure, public-sector pay and perks hardly put union workers in the 1 percent. But their clout enables them to enjoy retirement and health-care benefits that are often better than those available to the middle-class citizens whose tax dollars support them. What’s fair about that? Even after Walker’s bill, Wisconsin public employees pay just 5.8 percent of their salary toward their pensions and a modest 12.6 percent of their health-care premiums. …

Maybe there are enough voters in Wisconsin who support actual progressive governance — as opposed to “progressive” interest groups — to retain Walker.

Or maybe it’s dawning on Wisconsinites — even some who don’t like Walker’s policies — that it would be a disaster to cut his term in half at the behest of a special interest group. That would confirm Wisconsin’s public-sector unions as the state’s de facto rulers, which really would be the end of democracy.

Lane’s employer is based in the District of Columbia. Note that federal employees, who also are unionized, do not have collective bargaining rights.

3 responses to “The opposite of “progressive” — public-employee unions”

  1. Wisconsin Democrat Foot Soldiers | Wis U.P. North

    […] Read the rest over at the Presteblog. […]

  2. Wisconsin Unions Find Their Toady | Wis U.P. North

    […] The opposite of “progressive” – public-employee unions (steveprestegard.com) Please share this: Dane County, Dane County Wisconsin, Democratic, Democrats, Kathleen Falk, Public-sector trade union, Scott Walker, Wisconsin […]

  3. The inmates who want to run the asylum « The Presteblog Avatar
    The inmates who want to run the asylum « The Presteblog

    […] this is very revealing, both about the off-the-charts selfishness of the unions (whose ranks should be reduced by several thousand in the 2013–15 state budget) and about their […]

Leave a reply to Wisconsin Unions Find Their Toady | Wis U.P. North Cancel reply