An interesting perspective from New Jersey’s Chris Christie: there’s nothing wrong with collective bargaining as long as somebody — preferably the state’s chief executive — is there to represent the folks who pay the bills, i.e., the taxpayers.
Let’s make a deal, America. We won’t end public-sector collective bargaining; let’s just end the election of Democratic governors.
Christie just undercut Walker's position. I'm confused. Whats the fisc con position on this? Is Public Emp collective bargaining good or bad? Should the Federal gvmnt do it too? Did Jim endorse or critique Christie in his cutesy comment?
Gov. Christie is absolutely correct on this point. Conservatives should not have a problem with collective bargaining. Burke spoke of the "little platoons of society" which band together and make for a harmonious culture. Labor unions, whether you agree with everything they do or not (and I certainly do not -- their over-reliance on politics and embrace of social liberalism are unfortunate), fit in perfectly with this view. Business, government, and labor unions are all made up of fallen men. Each sector, left to its own natural desires, would run rough shod over the other groups to the detriment of society.
The problem of the moment is governors and legislatures which yield to the every demand of public labor unions and thus hurt everyone else in their state. Collective bargaining, in itself, is a useful tool whereby employees can check the inordinate demands of public and private employers. By attacking collective bargaining in itself Republicans deflect from the real issue -- the bad labor contracts -- and genuinely appear anti-labor.
The difference between Christie and Daniels is that you are confident that Christie will not fold to the people on the other side of the negotiating table, he will not back-stab the people on HIS side of the table, and EVERYONE understands what he means when he say something during the negotiation.
Daniels has already demonstrated the latter two are problem areas of his. Leaving aside the issue of RTW (Which I support.), for those who are rooting for the technocrat to run in 2012 - perhaps you will tell his PR office that he has done right, cause they sure were spinning like a dreidal at Hanukkah starting the day after the governor opened his mouth.
Christie is underestimating the ability of the unions to entrench things in such a way that one person can't undo them.
The problem is, what happens when neither side blinks? In the private sector the union would go on strike, and everybody would suck it up and wait it out. WI government unions can't do that, so instead, they go to "binding arbitration", where an unelected, unaccountable arbitrator gets to direct the government to raise taxes.
Even if this were democratically tolerable(and if it is, boy were those Founders bonkers to complain about 'taxation without representation'), in practice it results in:
Newly elected fresh-faced school board member: So uh, for health care. How about a plan that is $1000 per year better than the CEO of major corporations gets?
Gigaskillion dollar WEAC rep: Fuhgeddaboutit. $5000 more and not a penny less.
SBM: WTH???????
Union rep: Coincidentally that all goes into our pocket since we run the health plan.
SBM: WTH????????????????????????????
Union rep: You sound like you hate the working man. I think we better go to arbitration.
Arbitrator: Hmm, let's look at what surrounding districts do. It looks like - District A caved to the union..District B caved to the union in the sense that it is run by it..District C caved to the union..yeah, pretty much looks like what the union wants is the sane, moderate, sensible solution.
It will be interesting to see how conservatives who were angry with Daniels react to this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"OH NO! CHRISTIE IS SOFT! AHHH! WHAT A WUSS!" --voice of inane, irresponsible Daniels-basher.
DANIELS 2012
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChristie just undercut Walker's position. I'm confused. Whats the fisc con position on this? Is Public Emp collective bargaining good or bad? Should the Federal gvmnt do it too? Did Jim endorse or critique Christie in his cutesy comment?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGov. Christie is absolutely correct on this point. Conservatives should not have a problem with collective bargaining. Burke spoke of the "little platoons of society" which band together and make for a harmonious culture. Labor unions, whether you agree with everything they do or not (and I certainly do not -- their over-reliance on politics and embrace of social liberalism are unfortunate), fit in perfectly with this view. Business, government, and labor unions are all made up of fallen men. Each sector, left to its own natural desires, would run rough shod over the other groups to the detriment of society.
The problem of the moment is governors and legislatures which yield to the every demand of public labor unions and thus hurt everyone else in their state. Collective bargaining, in itself, is a useful tool whereby employees can check the inordinate demands of public and private employers. By attacking collective bargaining in itself Republicans deflect from the real issue -- the bad labor contracts -- and genuinely appear anti-labor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe difference between Christie and Daniels is that you are confident that Christie will not fold to the people on the other side of the negotiating table, he will not back-stab the people on HIS side of the table, and EVERYONE understands what he means when he say something during the negotiation.
Daniels has already demonstrated the latter two are problem areas of his. Leaving aside the issue of RTW (Which I support.), for those who are rooting for the technocrat to run in 2012 - perhaps you will tell his PR office that he has done right, cause they sure were spinning like a dreidal at Hanukkah starting the day after the governor opened his mouth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChristie is underestimating the ability of the unions to entrench things in such a way that one person can't undo them.
The problem is, what happens when neither side blinks? In the private sector the union would go on strike, and everybody would suck it up and wait it out. WI government unions can't do that, so instead, they go to "binding arbitration", where an unelected, unaccountable arbitrator gets to direct the government to raise taxes.
Even if this were democratically tolerable(and if it is, boy were those Founders bonkers to complain about 'taxation without representation'), in practice it results in:
Newly elected fresh-faced school board member: So uh, for health care. How about a plan that is $1000 per year better than the CEO of major corporations gets?
Gigaskillion dollar WEAC rep: Fuhgeddaboutit. $5000 more and not a penny less.
SBM: WTH???????
Union rep: Coincidentally that all goes into our pocket since we run the health plan.
SBM: WTH????????????????????????????
Union rep: You sound like you hate the working man. I think we better go to arbitration.
***************************************************
Arbitrator: Hmm, let's look at what surrounding districts do. It looks like - District A caved to the union..District B caved to the union in the sense that it is run by it..District C caved to the union..yeah, pretty much looks like what the union wants is the sane, moderate, sensible solution.
Taxpayers: WTH????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse