Who Won in Wisconsin?

Who won the battle of Wisconsin? Republican Gov. Scott Walker got a legislative victory. On the other hand, Democrats, with a wary eye on 2012 and noting the worrying drop in support for President Obama in union-heavy states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, claim to be delighted that Walker has picked this fight.

"Republicans have done organized labor a great favor by putting the movement back in (the) labor movement, creating a level of passion and activism for workers' rights that hasn't been seen in generations," crowed Democratic strategist Mike Lux.

Maybe so. Though the three-week tantrum by union protesters in Madison (which escalated to harassment of Republican legislators by the Party of Civility), along with the flight of Democratic legislators to Illinois may well offend more Americans than it energizes.

Polling is equivocal. A national poll by Rasmussen found that 48 percent supported Walker while only 38 percent favored the unions. A highly significant 56 percent of independents sided with the governor. On the other hand, a CBS/New York Times poll found that 56 percent of those surveyed opposed reducing pay or benefits of public employees in order to balance state budgets, and 60 percent opposed weakening the bargaining rights of public employees.

Let's stipulate that polls can suffer from tendentious wording. Nevertheless, the public's response to the Madison imbroglio suggests that Republican budget cutters have not completely made their case.

Republicans may need to put greater emphasis on the difference between private- and public-sector unions. In a private-sector company, when unions negotiate with management, there is a limiting factor at work -- the company must remain profitable or everyone is out of a job. In the case of public-sector unions, "management" consists of elected officials, and the city, state, or federal government is the employer. Profit or loss is irrelevant, so there is no limiting factor. If unions receive more and more generous pay and benefits, it's the taxpayers who are on the hook, not "management."

Franklin D. Roosevelt was as radical as Scott Walker. In 1937, he said, "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." Former AFL-CIO president George Meany agreed, saying, "It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

In the private sector, unions do not control management and vice versa. In the case of public-employee unions, "management" -- i.e., public officials -- often receive generous contributions from the very unions with whom they are negotiating -- permitting unions to choose "management" to form a cozy, if corrupt, circle.

During the last election cycle, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees contributed $90 million to Democratic candidates. In 2006, then New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine addressed a rally of 10,000 public employees in Trenton, declaring, "We will fight for a fair contract." Corzine was supposed to be management. With whom was he fighting?

The answer, as even Democratic governors like Andrew Cuomo and Jerry Brown are discovering, is other middle-class people -- i.e., the taxpayers. The taxpayers are the ones left holding the bag when elected officials team up with public-sector unions. Middle-class taxpayers, only about 65 percent of whom have access to retirement plans, are picking up the tab for the 90 percent of government employees who do. Nearly 70 percent of lower wage government workers receive health benefits, compared with only 38 percent of private-sector workers.

Many state workers avail themselves of the option to retire in their early to mid-50s at nearly full pay. If they were New Jersey teachers, they can collect free health benefits for life.

The results are clear: New York has a 2012 budget gap of $9 billion; California's is more than $20 billion; Illinois' is $11 billion. The vast majority of middle-class taxpayers, whose pay and benefits are lower than those of the public-sector workers, must pay in higher taxes or reduced services.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has asked California state workers for give-backs of 8 to 10 percent in salary, saying, "We have no choice ... We must now return California to fiscal responsibility and get our state on the road to economic recovery and job growth."

It's not over, so it's early to say that somebody "won". We still have the recall elections to deal with, there are court challenges to deal with, and many of the the anti-union provisions take effect at the next contract (ie, not immediately, possibly up to three years from now).

If the legislation survives challenge, then Repubs have struck a mortal blow against government unions in WI. Union revenues will be greatly diminished, and union contributions form a major part of Dem campaign revenue, which would tend to handicap the Dem party in WI.

As Charen points out, look at the wording of the questions. The 56% opposing reduction of pay or benefits were obviously asked a skewed question.

In WI the question was not about reducing their pay or benefits at all. It was about the public employees being asked to contribute a minor amount to their own benefits.

That could be spun into a ‘reduction,’ as in a few less $ in their wallets, but not a reduction in salary nor in benefits.

So now, with the reaction of the public sector employee unions and the abandoning of their state by the Dem legislators, WI passed a bill whereby each of the public sector unions will have to be re-certified each and every year.

51% of all members (not just those voting) will have to be in favor of re-certifying, or the union is de-certified.
Initially, union members will turn out to vote, so that will most likely happen, but it’s going to be hard to sustain over time.

Overall, I’d say Walker won. Big.

Republicans may need to put greater emphasis on the difference between private- and public-sector unions.

That's Klavan's tactic all right. I don't think it terribly effective because too many people can't repeat the logic in conversation.

IMO, this one works, albeit with a lousy tag line ("tell Obama you've had enough" my a$$; should have been, "tell your friends").

Timing is everything. There’s still nearly two years for the scum to go back to sleep and forget all about the fun party and the bused-in college kids and homeless debris who did $75 million worth of damage to the state capitol building.

Now there's something I never heard before.
I could see TV ads that make lefty/commie heads explode.

I’ve had a look at the various Obama Youth videos on YouTube. Very few delirious entries less than two years old.

If your description of the recent Boston fundraiser is accurate his base of support has narrowed immensely and even those who would die rather than criticize The One will not turn out for him.

The way he backpeddled from Wisconsin just days after committing the DNC and OFA to the fight says loads. Maybe Gov. Walker was smart in letting this clusterf***k go on for three weeks. America got an eyeful and earful watching these obnoxious thugs make a spectacle of themselves. The budget battle is just beginning but no way are most of the 14 dem senators going to allow themselves to be shanghaied again.

I agree with the columnist who said our Dems would do better to rename themselves the “Labor Party,” like their Brit and Euro counterparts. That who they were always all about. The other constituencies are disposable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.