Skip to comments.The Walker Vote Earthquake - break umbilical cord between the state treasury and union treasuries
Posted on 06/07/2012 3:18:17 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
.........In California, signatures have been gathered for a voter initiative, "Stop Special Interests," on the November ballot that, if passed, would break the umbilical cord between the state treasury and union treasuries. In California, among others, the state deducts union dues from public employee paychecks and sends these directly to the unions, thus saving them the need to persuade public employees to sign up to let the union bosses use their money in elections. This is the umbilical cord and the California unions have used it to become the most powerful special interest in Sacramento, having great influence over the Democrat-controlled state legislature.
What happens when the umbilical cord is broken? It happened in Wisconsin last year as part of Governor Walker's reform legislation. Dues stopped flowing from the state treasury to the unions. They had to sell their services to the workers.
Result: dues paying is down to 28 percent of the Wisconsin public work force.
Across the country, voter discontent has been building against overly-generous public employee benefits. Declining revenues in the recession sharpened public focus, along with the realization that, in many cases, these benefits had become far greater than they are in the private sector. In short, it began to look as if the taxpayers were working for their own employees.
What will the public employee unions do? Reeling from this loss, it is unlikely they will try another vengeance move such as the Walker recall. They also face a daunting task if many legislatures, county boards, and city councils propose reform measures, especially ones on the ballot for voters who are in no mood to continue "business as usual."
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
When articulated well, the relationship between the Dems and the public employee unions is enough to arouse voter ire in any area (except those where the permanently-dependent don’t pay them anyway). Christie framed this well in NJ, and Walker did in WI.
These fights are not ones those unions want played out in public view; Christie was elected after the Asbury Park Press exposed the teachers’ salaries in every district in NJ. People were shocked at how much teachers were raking in (never mind the benefits that the public sector lost decades ago), and voted accordingly.
"Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool." --Clinton presidential aide Paul Begala, July 1998
Public Service doesn't mean you're to be serviced by the public for life
President Kennedys Executive Order 10998, allowing Federal unions, is what opened the door for public sector unions at the state and local level, which is leading to bankruptcy from bloated public sector salaries, benefits, and retirement plans. Businesses that offered plans like many governments have would go bankrupt. Govt entities will, too, eventually, but it will be much more painful.
This is why unions should again be outlawed for public employees.
When collective bargaining was brought into American schools in the 1960s, it was a revenue stream and power base for Big Labor. Suddenly, union bosses became more interested in building political muscle than educating children.
At that point the battle between unions and school boards became more focused on salary, benefits, pensions and working conditions for adults, and less about students.
Kids are only pawns in the self-serving union game.
What is the purpose of teacher unions? To work for children? Establish new and better requirements? Push their members to better serve parents and children?
"Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees" ...National Education Association's just-retired General Counsel Bob Chanin. (The NEA is the County and State Association's parent body).
NEA General Counsel Bob Chanin Says Farewell:
As legendary New York teachers union leader Albert Shanker said, "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."
All government unions should be banned. The idea that government workers need protection from guess who?? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, is ridiculous. remember, teachers are government employees. Ban government unions.
It's about GD time these public sector unions realize WHO they work for. I had to vote for Governor Walker THREE TIMES in the last 18 months - ridiculous !
Also, my wife works as a lunch lady in the local middle school....she said the teachers were pretty quiet yesterday...hehe....
When Walker kicks union butt, it stays kicked!
We must seek out every place where government funds those advancing the socialist agenda and cut those funding ties.
But government also gives tax breaks to socialists in tax-exempt foundations. The required payout of 5% is too low. Most asset managers can earn more than 5% which allows foundations to have eternal life. The required payout must be boosted to something more than 7% to bring mortality to tax-exempt foundations.
Ever since I first read of Walker’s proposed reforms, I knew and told anyone who would listen that this was THE most important part of the whole package. Not only does it “cut the umbilical,” but it also frees the state of the costs (albeit nominal) of acting as the unions’ collection agency - a role that should never have been the state’s responsibility.
The proof of its effectiveness is in the substantial decrease in paying members of the Wisconsin unions since the changes were implemented. Now the unions have to convince each potential member that they perform a service that is worth paying for. That the former members would rather keep their money than give it to the unions is a testament to the fact that the unions serve them no useful purpose.