Not a dodge at all- Its the Truth. He is removing collective bargaining for benefits but NOT for wages. How supporting collective bargaing is “union busting” is beyoind me.
O’Reilly put up an analysis tonight trying to argue that the pensions make up for the salary differences between public/private workers. His numbers failed, but he drew the conclusion anyway that the pensions are too large. Using his numbers, private workers still earn a ton more money over the years than public workers, pensions included.
I’ll repeat my solution :
Nec5:
The governor and the union leaders should call each others’ bluff. Today is Sunday. Agree to meet Monday and agree to to the budget cuts. If this is indeed about money or the lack thereof, then collective bargaining should not be in the agreement. The cuts should be in it. Whichever side refuses to show up will then have tipped their hand about the real issue: absolute power to force the other side to become a quasi-slave (be it public workers and cronyism/abuse or a government enslaved to unreasonable worker demands).
All other arguments are a sideshow. The fact that the governor won’t call this meeting is telling. It isn’t really about the budget, so he should quit being deceptive. If the unions are lying about accepting the cuts, a meeting would instantly reveal their dishonesty too.
The balance between unions and employers has always been ugly. If one side begins to dominate, corruption and evil spread like wildfire (bribes, using bats on workers, etc). Unions and their progressive friends have had the upper hand for a while, yet this is one of those cases where we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. Unions definitely have their place, in and out of government, but they must be tempered just as they temper employers. Destroying their ability to bargain is not necessary when budget constraints are required. The meeting I proposed would work.
The argument put forth here that there should be bargaining for wages and not benefits is not honest. All of us go to work for one purpose: to receive compensation that will allow us and our families to survive/thrive. Normally, the compensation is money. Yet, many companies/gov’ts don’t want to go that route because it is cheaper to provide benefits as compensation instead of money. That’s basic substitution.
Therefore, when someone says the governor is not union busting or only focusing on benefits, it is indeed a cut into what a workers gets paid (payment coming via benefits instead of cash). Again, maybe the cut is necessary; the unions have agreed to it. The governor won’t take yes for an answer because he wants to take away the employee’s ability to ban together and safeguard compensation.
My solution works because it cuts through the nonsense. If this is a purely budgetary issue as so-called conservatives argue and the unions accept the cut, then do it. If it’s about something other than the workers taking cuts to balance the budget, then that’s a different animal. My recommendation to the protesters is to haul a desk into the capital with a contract on it accepting all the governor’s budgetary cuts. If he won’t sign the contract that includes his suggested cuts, then begin arguing that the governor is the one not wanting to balance the budget.
By the way, if I had things my way, no worker would get benefits. They would get higher pay instead to spend on the things they need/want. Benefits have allowed a lot of shenanigans on both sides and have caused a great deal of confusion. I’d also ditch insurance, but that’s another thread.
