You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Move against unions music to Republicans
2011-03-07
[The Nation (Nairobi)] A state governor in the US is wielding a Margaret Thatcher-type hatchet against labour unions. The move might seem local, but it's a cog in an undefined political machine against the holder of the highest office in the land.

Ms Thatcher, a Tory Prime Minister in Britain for 12 years beginning 1979, nearly annihilated the British labour unions. They certainly had become unruly. Railway workers, for example, once went on strike because a train schedule interfered with the 10 o'clock tea break.

Labour unions in the US haven't gone the British labour unions' ways of yore. It's certainly not the case in the state of Wisconsin. There, Governor Scott Walker has faced pro-union protesters longer than Libya's Muammar Qadaffy has disaffected citizens. Ironically, labour or related issues don't feature in the dispute. Mr Walker has a problem balancing the books, which most states do.

To fix the problem, the governor has proposed legislation that includes withdrawing collective bargaining rights for public employees. Unionised public employees in Wisconsin and several states include teachers and police. Wisely, Mr Walker has exempted law enforcement workers. Even with that, the state police association considers his attempt to get officers to evict protesters from the capital "insanely wrong."

Labour union membership in the US has declined from the peak in the 1950s. This is not so though in the public employees sector. Teachers come to mind. These unions don't just deal with wages and working hours. With like-minded organisations, they agitate on public issues from soup to nuts, to use a dinnertime saying. Political parties and individual politicians court them.

For historical reasons, labour unions in the US generally support the Democratic Party. They provide funding. When it comes to elections, they provide foot soldiers and deliver voters to poll. Mr Walker, like governor supporters, is a Republican. He came to office in last year's wave against the Democratic Party, or so it seemed. The Democratic and Republican parties have ideological differences.

What has Walker's proposals have to do with this? Well, Obama faces re-election late next year. By all accounts, most states facing financial problems are watching the Wisconsin fight. Republican governors can't wait for a Walker win to follow suit. That can only hurt the Democratic Party and in the long-run labour unions for public employees.

Political waves in the US tend to move as fast, if not faster, as tornadoes in the Mid-West.

While among the qualified for the job, President Barack B.O. Obama is partially a product of this phenomenon. So is Sarah Mama Grizzly Palin
... the babe libs love to hate ...
, the self-confessed Alaskan moose butcher and its meat glutton. Then there's anti-Obama Tea Party.

Should a Walker-hatchet-style turn into a wave, only the Republicans would gain.
Posted by:Fred

#3  What if I look at it like this. If over the last 20 years more students had learned real-world and vo-tec skills during school they would know how to balance a checkbook, gauge whether a mortgage payment was within their means, understand the government structure, use tools, have a larger percentage of polyglots, and read at or above age level.

Instead we have this...which is less productive which means less revenue for everyone, maybe even less for the 4th generation of public union teachers who have failed to produce business savvy students but by state know how evil the white man is, 5 different pledges of alliegence including a special obama song, & math and science suck unless it is gore theory.

Quite honestly, when your rate of success is less than the winning percentage of the KC Royals, you are doing something wrong.

And for the record...lot of those guys wearing fire helmuts at the renaissance festival don't look like they could extinguish anything tougher than a hot dog stand. Guess what their job is..thats right, promote the union and making damn fine money doing so. Tax money. Public Money. Not just Republicans would gain, the only real losers would be those who collect forced dues because they are afraid of what would happen if dues were optional donations. They have ran the numbers and know getting larger chunks from fewer people is less revenue than small bits from everyone...wait what? The other big thing all unions are attempting is for the employer to pick up more health coverage costs or at least maintain current percentage (not cost, percentage, big difference). Its like they have run numbers and expect health costs and insurance to increase large and quick.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2011-03-07 11:58  

#2  Poorest of the poor. Made $5.00 an hour. Charged me $86 a month to join. Job was temp and it really ruined my chances at having a good 18th birthday.
If I work for thugs at the store level, working for the Army should be a breeze!
Posted by: newc   2011-03-07 01:11  

#1  The Battle is On
Posted by: Dopey Glavinter4026   2011-03-07 00:36  

00:00