POLITICS FEBRUARY 19, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Anti-labor forces have waited decades for the opportunity that they are now trying to seize in Wisconsin. Republican Governor Scott Walker’s plan, echoed in proposals put forward by several other conservative governors, to take away the collective bargaining rights of most Wisconsin public employees under the guise of deficit reduction represents a bold effort to undo a half-century of labor history. It would turn back the clock to the early 1950s, a time when public workers still labored under a form a second-class citizenship. The goal? Republicans insist it is to spur economic growth—but, in fact, it is to undermine organized labor as a political actor.
First, some history. Public-sector collective bargaining arose in tandem with the civil rights movement between 1955 and 1965. This was no coincidence, as both movements were making the same point: How could the nation justify denying some citizens the rights and freedoms that it granted to others? The Wagner Act of 1935 protected the right to organize unions and bargain collectively for many private-sector workers, but it did not cover local, state, or federal workers. Nor did the Social Security Act cover them. By the 1950s, as the civil rights struggle pricked the conscience of the nation, this unequal treatment seemed less and less justifiable. As collective bargaining helped open the door to a middle-class lifestyle for millions of private-sector workers in the 1950s, the inequity became even clearer. Thus, by 1955, a special committee of the American Bar Association had called government labor practices “an apparent anachronism” and concluded that any government “which imposes on other employers certain obligations in dealing with their employees may not in good faith refuse to deal with its own public servants on a reasonably favorable basis.”
Following the example of cities like New York and Philadelphia, in 1959, Wisconsin became the first state to enact legislation recognizing the rights of government workers to bargain collectively. Similar laws spread in subsequent years, encouraged by Wisconsin’s law and inspired by Executive Order 10988, signed by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, which allowed federal workers to bargain over some aspects of their work (but not their pay or benefits). Critically, this growth enjoyed bipartisan support: Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act in 1968, which brought public sector bargaining to California. Through his own executive order in 1969, President Richard Nixon strengthened the bargaining rights Kennedy had first offered federal workers. As a result of this support on both sides of the aisle, between the mid-’50s and the mid-’70s, there was a tenfold increase in the membership of government workers’ unions.
But, since 1970, bi-partisan support for government unions has eroded. By the middle of the decade, anti-union voices on the right, alarmed by the rising political influence of public-sector unions, had begun a long battle to roll back collective bargaining—the same battle we’re seeing waged today in Madison.
For decades, these voices searched in vain for arguments that could justify a rollback of collective bargaining. Some, like the Public Service Research Council (PSRC), which was founded in the mid-’70s expressly to combat government unions, made the argument that collective bargaining would lead to a tidal wave of strikes that would paralyze government and hold taxpayers hostage. Others, like conservative legal scholar Sylvester Petro, whose writings helped inspire the PSRC, warned that unions would take control of government itself. It would then be necessary, Petro said in 1974, “for us to take to the hills and the fields and the caves once more, as our ancestors have frequently had to do when integral—sovereign—government has broken down.”
Over the years, these arguments never gained traction because reality so obviously diverged from what the fear-mongers predicted. Strikes rarely shut down government services, especially after President Reagan broke the PATCO strike, the air-traffic controllers walkout of 1981. (Tellingly, even Reagan never advocated getting rid of collective bargaining in government altogether.) And few Americans ever came to share Petro’s paranoid belief that unionization would undermine government sovereignty and send them fleeing to the “hills and caves.”
But now, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, conservative, anti-labor politicians like Governor Walker are trying out a new and potentially more potent anti-union argument: We can no longer afford collective bargaining. The wages, health benefits, and pensions of government workers, these opponents say, are driving states into deep and dangerous deficits.
Yet this contention is every bit as bogus as the alarmist arguments put forth by the anti-union crusaders of the 1970s. Contrary to Walker’s assertion, there is no direct correlation between public-sector collective bargaining and yawning state budget deficits. According to data gathered by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, while Wisconsin projects a state budget deficit of 12.8 percent for FY 2012, North Carolina, which does not allow government workers to bargain, faces a significantly higher deficit: 20 percent. Ohio, whose Republican governor John Kasich has also made clear his desire to roll back collective bargaining, has a deficit that is only about half the size of non-union North Carolina’s. Clearly, then, state budget deficits we are now witnessing are not the product of collective bargaining, but rather reflect the differential impact of the current recession on individual states, as well as the integrity of state fiscal practices (such as whether they raise enough in taxes to pay for the essential services they provide).
Such facts apparently matter little to Walker, Kasich, and their ilk. They have taken to heart the famous quip by the right wing’s bête noire, Rahm Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Exploiting the suffering of so many during this “Great Recession,” they are seeking to turn hurting private-sector workers against their supposedly “privileged” public-sector counterparts in a perverse new form of class warfare, the end results of which will only accelerate the downward pressure on incomes and benefits that has contributed to a new gilded age of wealth inequality in America.
What proponents of the rollback in public-sector bargaining rights are unable to explain is how taking rights away from some American workers will improve the lot of others. How will denying collective bargaining rights for teachers, social workers, or parks employees in Wisconsin create good jobs in the private sector? How will taking away the rights of prison guards to bargain collectively in Ohio keep manufacturing jobs in the United States? How will reducing the pensions promised to government workers (often in return for their agreement to forego salary increases) create retirement security for private sector workers whose paltry 401Ks are unable to support them? How will holding down public-sector pay stop the erosion of the American middle-class—of which public-sector workers constitute a significant proportion?
Of course, there are no serious answers to such questions, because what Republicans are now seeking in Wisconsin and elsewhere has nothing to do with helping put America back to work. It is really all about politics. As the protests that have erupted in Madison over the past few days remind us, even in its weakened state, the labor movement can still mobilize grassroots opposition to the anti-government agenda of Tea Party Republicans like Walker. It is precisely this capability that Walker and others are determined to undermine by taking away workers’ rights to union representation.
No matter what conservative governors say, the extension of collective-bargaining to public-sector workers is not what entangled us in the current economic crisis. Indeed, what is going on in Wisconsin and other states ought to be seen for what it is: a bald attempt to exploit the bad economy, undo 50 years of legal precedent on labor issues, and win a political victory, no matter the cost.
Joseph A. McCartin is an associate professor of history and director of the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University. This fall, Oxford University Press will publish his book Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, the Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
49 comments
A telling detail, reported in the NYTimes this morning, the governor exempted fire and police unions from his anti-union crusade. Why? During the gubenatorial election, both unions endorsed him. Thus, if you play ball, your union is OK. If not, we'll go after you. A sad turn of events in the state of LaFollette. Dan
- dbuck1
February 19, 2011 at 8:12am
dbuck1, Yes, you're right. It is a telling detail, but I think it goes even farther than that. If there's one union the right (or should I just say the establishment?) does not want to do battle with, it's the police--not just in Wisconsin but nationwide. The reason is obvious: In a time of social upheaval, the police stand in between the political establishment and the angry masses. The police are a key coercive mechanism, greatly empowered under the guise of "fighting terrorism" over the last decade, but really in anticipation of the internal dissension that is now emerging. Expect similar deals in other states. The right will not--if it can possibly help it--alienate its own protective force. The fire unions are actually pretty irrelevant in these sorts of calculations, but mechanisms for salary and benefit negotiations for the firefighters are so intertwined with those of the police, that the two cannot be easily disentangled. In the current environment, the firefighters are extremely lucky.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
February 19, 2011 at 9:27am
"Only government workers can afford to retire." If you haven't heard this, you are either deaf or need to get out more. Employer provided retirement benefits in the private sector are being reduced if not eliminated entirely. And defined benefit retirement plans (a "pension") in the private sector have all but disappeared. But not in the public sector, where defined benefit plans, adopted back when they were the standard in the private sector, are the predominate form of retirement benefit. That, combined with full vesting after years of service rather than reaching normal retirement age, creates the perception that public employees receive far more generous retirement benefits than those in the private sector. And then there are the double dippers: public employees who "retire" after satisfying the years of service requirement (often at age 50 or younger) and receive a full pension while continuing to work full-time, in many cases for government. If that's not enough to turn a good liberal in the private sector into an unhinged conservative, the good liberal need only look at his or her 401(k) statement. McCartin's call for worker solidarity sounds great, but it's a weak appeal to private sector employees whose compensation and benefits, especially retirement benefits, continue to erode.
- rayward
February 19, 2011 at 9:46am
OF course the actions of Gov. Walker and others are about politics. But they are also about economics. The interesting question is whether Gov. Walker's rather radical proposals to reduce collective bargaining rights are a gambit or a goal -- whether they are a bargaining chip to be given away in exchange for curbs on pay, pension and other benefits -- or whether Walker really expects them to be enacted. If the former, Walker has a lot of leverage. While it is not clear that government employee compensation is a major part of Wisconsin's fiscal woes, it is reasonably clear that it is in, e.g., California and Illinois. So Wisconsin officials are right to worry about government employee compensation, even if the real negative effect of that compensation is down the road a ways. Wisconsin's electorate is not going to tolerate long-lasting denials of service (such as teacher sick-ins), and does not have a great deal of sympathy for public sector unions or run-away legislators. On the other hand, it does not have a lot of sympathy for bullying tactics by elected officials. My guess is that Walker has the whip hand in this fight, so long as he does not overplay it.
- JohnEMack
February 19, 2011 at 10:25am
This reminds me of one of the ways some people like to deal with crime -- by limiting the rights of criminals they think have been abused with no attention paid to whether those rights serve a valid purpose.
- Nusholtz
February 19, 2011 at 10:33am
More accurately Wisconsin as Greece is about elections. They matter. The employer in this case equates to the private sector citizens of WI. They have elected representatives to take back their state from the grip of unionized public sector parasites and their gold-plated benefits Of course, parasistes and parasite defenders such as the assistant prof here, will protest. But in the end, democracy will prevail for WI.
- mr_rationale
February 19, 2011 at 12:03pm
Yes, it's all about politics and taxes, "Clearly, then, state budget deficits we are now witnessing are not the product of collective bargaining, but rather reflect the differential impact of the current recession on individual states, as well as the integrity of state fiscal practices (such as whether they raise enough in taxes to pay for the essential services they provide)." I hope the unions don't give in.
- arnon
February 19, 2011 at 12:43pm
“More accurately Wisconsin as Greece is about elections.” There is little similarity between Greece, a sovereign country, and the State of Wisconsin.
- arnon
February 19, 2011 at 12:47pm
The "protesters" in Wisconsin are bunch of parasites with no class. They are utterly unprofessional and clearly put their own greed above the interests of the children they are supposed to serve. One of them held up a sign equating Gov. Walker with Hilter [sic]. The governor should fire any striking teacher who doesn't return to work immediately. That would at least give him a chance to hire literate teachers.
- bulbman1066
February 19, 2011 at 1:10pm
Wisconsin has a legislature that sets its own compensation, pensiond and perks, and similarly for the governor who has a power to disapprove his salary with theirs. The governor claims that unions play too strong a role in negotiating compensation. Shouldn't he be upset about that he can effectively set his own compensation?
- Nusholtz
February 19, 2011 at 2:12pm
Unions were much needed when they were protecting the weak. But considering the average pay + benefits of a teacher in Wisconsin has surpassed $100K--nearly twice the median salary and probably 90% higher than median salary + benefits--that means that they are now extracting that largess FROM the downtrodden in this country. OK, so teachers today are making about 1.8X median for salary and benefits. If you support the teachers and unions, ask yourself this: Where would your support stop? When teacher salary + benefits are 2.0X the median? 2.5X the median? 3X the median? 5X the median? Someone who started teaching in their early 20's is able to retire in most states in their mid 50's, with a pension worth about $1.5M + excellent health care for the next 30 years. Pretty sweet.
- seattleeng
February 19, 2011 at 2:58pm
Since when are teachers "parasites?" Also - you guys are ignoring facts: the teachers have tried to meet with the governor. They are willing to take pay cuts and make concessions. HE WON'T MEET WITH THEM. This is being used to strip the union of its collective bargaining rights, without due process and it's also probably unconstitutional considering that the unions who supported the governor aren't included. Also, as to the Sour Grapes Dept. Well, if the private sector workers want better benefits and pay why aren't supporting the idea of unions? It is the ONLY way workers can defend ourselves against management which historically has eaten us alive. We are seen as a profit center not as people. Corporations are increasing "productivity" by eliminating jobs and over-stressing the remaining workers. Salaries have been taking a nose dive since the 1970's in real terms while the boss class gets obscenely rich. Also, our great corporate leaders have ruined the economy by promoting voodoo economics and sending jobs overseas, offshoring wealth and industry. FINALLY: one could argue we are and should part of the SAME union, that of the US, and all workers including bosses should contribute to the best of our ability and receive what we need in turn. OH WAIT A SECOND. too logical right? plus oh g*d that might be the unspeakable.
- Sophia
February 19, 2011 at 3:55pm
OK as to the idea that teachers get too much money. SINCE WHEN. Are teachers not important? Why shouldn't knowledge and intellectual ability and the ability to pass that along be rewarded?
- Sophia
February 19, 2011 at 3:56pm
Civilization on its way to collapse. News at 11. Don't talk about it at school, at least not until students are in high school and have a note from their parents.
- skahn
February 19, 2011 at 4:44pm
Sophia writes: "Also, as to the Sour Grapes Dept. Well, if the private sector workers want better benefits and pay why aren't supporting the idea of unions?" Sophia, unions don't work if everyone is in a union. Assume for a moment, that a union worker extracts a 20% premium over the private worker. If everyone was in an union, then that 20% premium would be reduced to 0. Another way to look at this: how about we just give everyone a raise in thsi country. Right off the bat, just give everyone a 20% raise. And if that seems a bit small, then ask why we can't give everyone a 50% raise. Or, better still, why not a 500% raise? It's because the money isn't there. Unions extract a premium for their workers at the expense of other workers that are not in a union. It doesn't come at the expense of management, because there aren't enough managers. Sophia writes: "OK as to the idea that teachers get too much money. SINCE WHEN. Are teachers not important?" Teachers are important. We spend $300,000 to educate a classroom of 30 kids in the US. That is a lot of money. That is almost 50% more than Canada. How much more do you think we should be spending?
- seattleeng
February 19, 2011 at 6:31pm
Sophia writes: "Also, our great corporate leaders have ruined the economy by promoting voodoo economics and sending jobs overseas, offshoring wealth and industry." The reality is that manufacturing jobs have been replaced by automation. 50 years ago, without computers, there was a huge need for skilled craftsmen that could turn a piece of metal down to a given tolerance. Or weld a seam to spec. Or cast an engine block without any voids. But machines do all that today. The primary reason is efficiency. They can do it so much faster than a person can do it. And efficiency is what drives the world. The people that are needed today to load parts into and out of the machines are low-skilled workers that make very little in China, and they would make minimum wage in the US. A worker that works on the iphone in china can be trained to do that job in a few hours. It takes more training to work at a 7-11 today. The purpose of corporations is to make money and beat their competitor at that game. The better they do at that, the better we all do. If you don't believe it consider the middle class worker today lives FAR BETTER than the middle class worker in the 50's. No contest whatsoever.
- seattleeng
February 19, 2011 at 6:41pm
The Republican Party is making a sustained, multi-state effort to destroy collective bargaining rights. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies collective bargaining as a fundamental human right. So does Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (part of International Bill of Human Rights). Apparently the USA, in its third century of existence, has still not decided to protect even its own citizens' human rights. So why is it so avid to lecture foreign nations?
- TNR.Reader
February 19, 2011 at 7:15pm
TNR.Reader, since when is giving people more choices destroying anything? If I want to work at a specific job and NOT join a union, shouldn't that be my right? Of course it should. Article 23 says I have a right to join a union, but it also says I have a right to work and NOT join a union. Today in Wisconsin that isn't possible in certain public sector jobs. Ergo, not sure what your point is in citing this document. Additionally, while I can understand private industry negotiating with unions, the temptation of "tit for tat" between unions and politicians is too tempting. Public employees and unions are a very, very bad mix that bring out the worst in greed. Witness through this entire downturn the unions have made more and more money, coming at the expense of taxpayers. Unions of course helped Obama into office. And their overly favorable treatment has been very clear because of that.
- seattleeng
February 19, 2011 at 10:15pm
Mr. McCartin is dead right. This is politics not economics. College drop-out Scott Walker distinguished himself as Milwaukee County Executive with only one attribute -- to get himself reelected by suburban voters by promising not to raise taxes. He did not fix one thing that ails the city I live in. Since his election as governor he has killed thousands of jobs and used economics his poor understanding of economics to justify the enlargement of his executive power. If he is allowed to continue we will have a centralized big government which answers only to business interests. Wisconsin is the future of the country if the Republicans have their way. That future is plutocracy.
- mjhill
February 19, 2011 at 10:47pm
Seattleeng “If I want to work at a specific job and NOT join a union, shouldn't that be my right? Of course it should.” Unions don’t stop you from working at the job of your choice. Why would you want to stop me from joining a union in the job of my choice?
- arnon
February 19, 2011 at 11:40pm
Also, why would the US, supposedly the Human Rights Leader of the World, remain so damn backwards regarding health care? The comments I am reading about Wisconsin - some are just awful. People are jealous because union members have good health care. They are FURIOUS because the union members have health care and they do not, or have to pay exorbitant sums for it. Well - all Americans have an opportunity to have single payer health care if we push for it or - we could even just support Obama's initiative - but nooooooooooooooooooooooo.
- Sophia
February 20, 2011 at 12:01am
arnon, people are not furious they have health care. People are furious that public worker benefits continue to go up up up at a rate far exceeding private sector. It is not sustainable, and it's not right to ask a family strugging at $60K per year to continue paying salary and benefits for a school teacher that has the luxury of retiring at 55 with full health care and a $1.5M pension. You ask: "Unions don’t stop you from working at the job of your choice. Why would you want to stop me from joining a union in the job of my choice?" Nobody in Wisconsin is asking you to do this. They are requiring concessions in the leverage produced via collective bargaining. I think it's fair to admit that collective bargaining has delivered massive wins for the union workers in the last decade. So much so that nobody can afford these benefits any longer. If the state can't afford the contracts, what do you propose is to be done?
- seattleeng
February 20, 2011 at 12:48am
Well - all Americans have an opportunity to have single payer health care if we push for it or - we could even just support Obama's initiative - but nooooooooooooooooooooooo. Why didn't it pass when there was a dem president and dem majority in congress?
- seattleeng
February 20, 2011 at 1:45am
Good question. Ask Obama. Better yet ask the insurance industry and their lobbyists. There are so many people profiteering from other folks' misfortune it is disgusting. This goes double for war. Meanwhile, I just saw an argument on an AOL thread that might work. A person claims the Governor is trying to impose "socialism" on the people of Wisconsin, by forcing everybody to have the same income & benefits, ie by reducing highly trained professionals such as teachers to the same level as high school grads working in department stores, he is imposing socialism on the people of Wisconsin. I love it. http://www.dailyfinance.com/article/largest-protest-yet-fails-to-sway-wis-lawmakers/1591824/?cid=10 Read the discussion thread, you'll find the comment by pmbalele, a genius. The Democrats should hire this guy.
- Sophia
February 20, 2011 at 3:21am
Sorry, here is the working link: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/19/battle-over-anti-union-bill-draws-protesters-from-both-sides-to/ Meanwhile, speaking of insane Republican budget cuts including to public broadcasting and Planned Parenthood, people should study the writings of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
- Sophia
February 20, 2011 at 3:23am
I take issue with your comment the "labor movement can still mobilize grassroots opposition." I dare say many of the protesters have not been "mobilized by labor" but by a desire to protect bargaining rights for all and are present of their own accord: no one "told" these people to demonstrate. They just recognized a bad deal when saw one and decided to fight it. I have nothing against labor mobilizing union members, but this protest is so much more than that. It's a spontaneous swell of people responding to vindicative and mean-spirited neo-conservatives who want, as you say, to crush the last bastion of worker rights in the U.S. I, for one, who is no longer a public sector worker nor a public sector union member, would be in Madison in a flash, if I could, to support opponents of the bill and at no one's bidding.
- Claris
February 20, 2011 at 8:25am
Claris: "They just recognized a bad deal when saw one and decided to fight it. " Bad deal? It's a bad deal the guy making $70K a year has to pay for the lavish benefits the union workers have. That is a bad deal. The governor is asking that benefit increases be capped at inflation. Not at all unreasonable. What is it FDR said about public employees and unions? That they shouldn't be able to organize? This is exactly why. NJ too. Politicians win, and then heap enormous rewards on the unions that voted them into office. And the guy making $60K/year has to pay for it. It's not right.
- seattleeng
February 20, 2011 at 11:52am
Sophia Writes: "Good question. Ask Obama." If you had a friend that claimed he could fly--although you had never seen it, but he always chose to walk instead because he said it was more fun to walk, what would you think? Either A) Yes, he could fly because he told you so and you believed him B) No, he couldn't fly. I hope B). It is the same thing with single payer. In order for it to work, taxes have be raised A LOT on middle class workers (and everyone). Just like canada. Just like EU. That will never happen. Dems know it. So they keep talking about single payer as a viable option to keep the dreamers excited. They are duping you. If this would work, they would have floating a plan when they had majorities. But that plan would have included big tax increases, and everyone would have laughed them out of town. So rather that live through that, they decided they get more benefit by talking about it as some big dream that is possible, but the evil repubs are preventing it from happening. They cannot fly. And they cannot make single payer work without a middle class earner paying a lot more. It's viable to consider. But our middle class would never go for it. Many want their boats and motorcyles and campers instead.
- seattleeng
February 20, 2011 at 12:01pm
There is nothing inherently wrong or unworkable if high taxes also lead to good public education, a proper transport infrastructure, and effective health care. In fact, given the size of the U.S. and our internal market, economies of scale should contibute to making universal health care cheaper per person than in, say, France or the UK. Effective health care for all improves the quality of life, longevity, and economic effectiveness for all. Some things are of national significance, and not just policy choices. Isn't that why we have the United States, and not just 300 million people who accidently found themselves in the same place? Somebody earning 50K-70K who gets hit with a massive medical bill for themselves or their family will soon discover there's more to life's mysteries than taxation.
- ironyroad
February 20, 2011 at 12:43pm
Irony writes: " In fact, given the size of the U.S. and our internal market, economies of scale should contibute to making universal health care cheaper per person than in, say, France or the UK." No. Consider, our per-capita medicaid (not medicare) is almost 2X the per capita NHS spend in the UK EVEN WITH drugs (12% of medicaid spend) removed. Think about that: Take a 30 year old person in the US on medicaid (very low overhead, no profit, forcing doctors to work at a 30% discount). Remove the overhead and drugs from the equation, and he's almost 2X more expensive to insure than his UK counterpart. The US is an inherently more expensive system. We see that in education. We see that in health care.
- seattleeng
February 20, 2011 at 1:03pm
irony writes: "Somebody earning 50K-70K who gets hit with a massive medical bill for themselves or their family will soon discover there's more to life's mysteries than taxation." But if they were really worried about that, they'd get a high deductible policy for a family of 4. It'd cost $270 month at Anthem, with $10K deductible. That's about what they'd pay for cable (with HBO) + family cellphone plan with unlimited texted, some data etc. But these families know this already. They have opted for cable + internet instead.
- seattleeng
February 20, 2011 at 1:14pm
The teachers of Wisconsin do NOT average $100K a year! What right-wing website pushed that bogus figure? They average less than $47,000. Look here: http://teacherportal.com/salary/Wisconsin-teacher-salary Even if you factor in their pensions, that still doesn't add up to $100K a year.
- Brn2bwild
February 20, 2011 at 1:28pm
seattleeng: "they'd get a high deductible policy for a family of 4. It'd cost $270 month at Anthem, with $10K deductible." Seattle, we've had this discusion before. I've asked a doctor about such "major medical" policies, and the doctor thinks your numbers are way off (it would help if you provided cites). Plus I have one of those major medical policies just for me, and it costs a lot more than $270 a month. Plus can a family get such a plan if one member has a preexisting condition, even a minor one? Plus if there's a $10k deductible, and an incident going up to the deductible would put the family in dire financial straits anyway, then what's the point of paying the premiuims for a high deductible policy? "That's about what they'd pay for cable (with HBO) + family cellphone plan with unlimited texted, some data etc. "But these families know this already. They have opted for cable + internet instead." Do you have any data at all on how many families making around median income ($50k) have HBO? If so, please provide it. Again, a cite would help.
- dsimon
February 20, 2011 at 3:34pm
settleeng: "The US is an inherently more expensive system. We see that in education. We see that in health care." Seattle, we've had this discussion before too. There's no "inherent" reason why things here should be more expensive than in our peer nations. There are reasons for things being the way they are. We just need to be a little more persistent in finding out why instead of throwing our hands up and saying that's just the way things are. Read T.R. Reid's "The Healing Of America" if you're interested in seeing some of the reasons why all of our peer nations have lower health care costs than we do. There is no inherent reason why we can't bring our costs into alignment with theirs (and they get as good results as we do).
- dsimon
February 20, 2011 at 3:42pm
DSimon writes: Seattle, we've had this discusion before. I've asked a doctor about such "major medical" policies, and the doctor thinks your numbers are way off (it would help if you provided cites). Go to ehealthinsurance dot com and pick a family of four where the parents are in their 40's and the kids are in their teens. Pick a midwestern state like colorado (zip 80123). You will see the Anthem plan called CoreShare Plus 10000 come up for $270/month. This is a catastrophic care (aka high deductable plan) as I described. This plan would cover you 100% for anything incurred over $10,000. I'm not sure why you would ask a doctor how much insurance would cost. Doctors I've talked to can't even tell me their cash price for things like EKGs, having a mole removed, etc. Please, DSimon, do us all a favor and research this once and for all so we can agree on the number and move on.
- seattleeng
February 20, 2011 at 4:48pm
dsimon writes: "There's no "inherent" reason why things here should be more expensive than in our peer nations." Indeed there is. First, let's start with education. Why are US education costs 50% higher than most every other OECD country, and the quality is much poorer? Next, if you want a detailed accounting of this, search and read on a mckinsey doc called "accounting for the cost of health care in the united state" (I'd post the link but my TNR luck with posting things is getting worse each week). It goes into excruciating detail on why our system is more expensive that the rest of the world. It ranges from doctors salaries, the nurse to patient ratio, nurses salaries, utilization, the number of doctor visits we make each year, etc. It's all very explainable. And yes, we are inherently more expensive.
- seattleeng
February 20, 2011 at 4:52pm
PS. Book you noted ordered.
- seattleeng
February 20, 2011 at 4:53pm
What on earth has cable TV and/or HBO got to do with it?
- ironyroad
February 20, 2011 at 4:55pm
Oh it's one of those jibes at people - you know - they could have insured their family BUT they decided to get internet and cable instead. Sheese. Also, seattle etc, you need to realize something: even if you want and can afford health insurance YOU MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO GET IT at any price. Read this: http://www.medicineonline.com/news/10/9846/Private-Health-Insurance-Hard-to-Get-and-Costly.html Your attitude is completely out of touch with reality.
- Sophia
February 20, 2011 at 5:32pm
Further: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20Dubinsky.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
- Sophia
February 20, 2011 at 6:07pm
It's a short term remedy. Wisconsin will create an opportunity for other states to hire the best teachers. Eventually, as the best new young teachers capitalistically seek jobs where they have union protection, the Wisconsin schools will deteriorate. Private schools will form, but qualified teachers may look for the security of unions and the price of private school will rise to compete. Businesses who are influenced by the quality of public schools for those employees who can not afford expensive private schools will locate elsewhere. Eventually, they may regret the choice.
- Nusholtz
February 20, 2011 at 6:46pm
That is, eventually Wisconsin will regret their choice.
- Nusholtz
February 20, 2011 at 6:48pm
@seattleeng: Sure wish I earned "$60K/year" when I was a public employee. You can ALWAYS find someone willing to work for less money and fewer benefits than someone else, but at what cost to society? That's why we have unions. (By the way, public employees are taxpayers too.) Bob Cratchit had no union and it literally took an act of god to get Ebenezer Scrooge to pay him more money.
- Claris
February 21, 2011 at 5:07am
Seattle better not read Jon Cohn's latest blog post: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/83884/wisconsin-walker-public-worker-salary-benefit This isn't about employee compensation. It's about the GOP wanting to crush the only organized opposition they have in campaigns and shows their fetish/love for the oligarchy and hatred of the middle/working class.
- tnmats
February 21, 2011 at 11:47am
Proof it has NOTHING to do with the budget and everything to do with eliminating a political opponent: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/20/wisconsin-democratic-senators-illinois_n_825748.html "On Friday, union leaders in Wisconsin agreed to the part of Walker's bill that would require public employees to double their health insurance contributions and contribute 5.8 percent of their salary to their pensions. Walker has argued that concessions by public workers are necessary in order to help the state's financial situation. But in return, unions have asked Republicans to remove the provision that would essentially strip away the collective bargaining rights of public employees. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald has said, however, that the measure is non-negotiable. " It has nothing to do with fiscal issues anymore and is purely a way to crush political opposition and shroud it in lying doublespeak.
- tnmats
February 21, 2011 at 11:54am
And more from Jon Cohn, quoting others who see what is going on (and it ain't about budgets): http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/83890/fight-unions-sure-do-away-them The GOP governor and his GOP cohorts in the WI legislature are lying. This has nothing to do with balancing budgets. If it did, they'd sit down with the unions since they unions have already agreed to the concessions asked of them to balance the budget. This all is about stifling dissent against the corporate manipulation of our government by the rich and powerful, nothing less. Unions stand in the way so the GOP says they must be crushed. Isn't this what happens in fascist regimes?
- tnmats
February 21, 2011 at 12:49pm
It's exactly what happens in fascist regimes, also in systems which essentially enslave workers (or actually buy and sell human beings.)
- Sophia
February 21, 2011 at 4:01pm
Also: plans to sell Wisconsin's power plants - no bid! - to private entities: http://www.jsonline.com/business/116204654.html
- Sophia
February 21, 2011 at 11:00pm
tnmats writes: "It has nothing to do with fiscal issues anymore and is purely a way to crush political opposition and shroud it in lying doublespeak." It is this collective bargaining that in fact gives unions their negotiating strength, which in turn manifests as budgetary ruin for the state. So, yes, it could readily be argued that long-term fiscal health is tied to collective bargaining. If the governor is trying to put a long term plan into place, then restricting the unions ability here is key. The governor has said that salaries can be tied to COLA. What is unfair about that? You are right that the other part (where people vote yearly on whether or not to join the union) is an attempt to break the union up. But if the union can weather that annual challenges by showing their members they are delivering a benefit, then maybe the union isn't needed? Looked at another way, the governor is saying "you'll get cola with or without a union. Beyond cola isn't happening, and can't be afforded. It is up to you to decide if you want to spend $750 a month to get cola, which we are guaranteeing anyway" the union is charging each member about $10K per year, and each member is expecting to get much more than $10K per year in raises. If those raises aren't coming, why join a union???
- seattleeng
February 23, 2011 at 3:01pm