Opinion in the WSJ: Government Unions vs. Taxpayers

[Omaha Steve]

Thoughts on this?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009350303578410.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

* DECEMBER 13, 2010

The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment.

By TIM PAWLENTY

When Americans think of organized labor, they might think of images like I saw growing up in a blue-collar meatpacking town: hard hats, work boots, tough conditions and gritty jobs. While I didn't work in the slaughterhouses, I did become a union member when I worked at a grocery store to help put myself through school. I was grateful for the paycheck and proud of the work I did.

The rise of the labor movement in the early 20th century was a triumph for America's working class. In an era of deep economic anxiety, unions stood up for hard-working but vulnerable families, protecting them from physical and economic exploitation.

Much has changed. The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.

Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt.

How did this happen? Very quietly. The rise of government unions has been like a silent coup, an inside job engineered by self-interested politicians and fueled by campaign contributions.

Public employee unions contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers. As more government employees join the unions and pay dues, the union bosses pour ever more money and energy into liberal campaigns. The result is that certain states are now approaching default. Decades of overpromising and fiscal malpractice by state and local officials have created unfunded public employee benefit liabilities of more than $3 trillion.

FULL letter at link.

[snot]

1. K&R'd. I'm v. concerned about attacks like this --

Conservatives are basically using the results from their successful breaking of most other unions and looting of most of the rest of us to attack the few unions left that have remained strong enough to protect their members.

[Peregrine Took]

3. My husband just said that! They have broken the other unions now they

are coming after AFSCME. I wish Jerry Wurf was still around. He'd kick their butts.

[Peregrine Took]

2. Public employment only looks good because the private sector is so bad.

Years ago it was just the opposite (like 40 years ago) when government jobs were scorned as low paying and lacking status. Things have changed quite a bit since then as private sector wages have remained stagnant and benefits scaled back.

Now the government stands apart as one of the few decent employers who pay a living wage with benefits and the right wingers want to try to stop that to put everyone in the poor house.