Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Killing unions with 'paycheck protection'
Gil Smart at Smart Remarks:Cutler, Norquist and Gleason note, has sponsored a paycheck protection bill in the state House that would prohibit government employers from deducting from a public employees salary any funds which inure to the benefit of a private organization.
In other words: Union dues are often deducted from unionized government workers checks by government itself. The bill would stop that, putting the onus on the unions themselves to go collect the dues.
On the surface, its hardly an outrageous proposal. Whats outrageous is the rationale Norquist and Gleason use to support the idea: This change empowers workers making union leadership more responsive and accountable to them, they proclaim. ... it would force union brass to prove their value to rank-and-file workers in order to convince them to part with their hard-earned income. ... workers are empowered when the decision whether to give their money to unions is voluntary.
Yes, this is about empowering workers.
Please.
Empowering workers to what? Withhold support from the union? Slit their own throats, economically?
If thats what the workers want to do, then sure, they should be permitted to do so. But lets not play games. The purpose of Cutlers bill, and a similar bill pending in the state Senate, is to wound public unions, to undermine them.
To kill them.
Its about limiting wages, limiting benefits, maybe limiting job security. Again, theres a legitimate argument to be had over what public employees should be paid. But if were going to have that argument, lets hit it head-on. Lets make the case explicitly that, say, teacher pay should be capped at X, whatever X is, that taxpayers are tapped out and its time to make hard decisions, decisions that are going to make some people deeply unhappy.
Lets not dress it up in sanctimonious pap about how were really concerned about union employees. Because the bottom line is that the Grover Norquists of the world think unionized government employees are treated too well and that they need to be treated less well in the future.
Bust the unions, and you can pretty much guarantee that.
Because, say what you will about unions, and Ive heard most of the epithets, they exist to do right by their members or rather, to make sure the employer does right by the union members. And government unions have done that; many government jobs pay a solid middle class wage, and provide what we used to consider solid middle class benefits. It wouldnt have happened without unions.
But that success now makes unionized public workers outliers. Not necessarily in terms of the amount they take home in a paycheck, but in guaranteed raises; in defined benefit pension plans. The public, watching its own wages stagnate and swimming with the sharks in the 401(k) pool, either cant foot this bill any longer or doesnt want to. Resentment runs high. And that makes it the perfect time to strike, if youre looking to strike unions.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 734 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Killing unions with 'paycheck protection' (Original Post)
Bgno64
Feb 2014
OP
yurbud
(39,405 posts)1. which state? the problem is, Democrats are not giving the counter argument anywhere:
"Instead of tearing down government workers, shouldn't we be RAISING the standard of living and benefits of private sector workers?"