Yesterday’s UnionWatch reminded us how odd it is that public and private unions routinely demonstrate “solidarity,” since they often have conflicting goals. An ongoing case in Wisconsin offers up a glaring example.
In late January of this year, the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee released a study detailing the dire state of black-male employment in the nation’s largest cities. Milwaukee itself ranked third-to-last (behind only Detroit and Buffalo), with a black-male-employment rate of only 44.7 percent — a drop of 28.7 percent since 1970.
The news caused as much disruption in Milwaukee as a post-Thanksgiving flatulent uncle. The discomfort it wrought was widely ignored, and any discussion of the issue dissipated quickly. Elected officials in the city maintained their “no snitching” truce — if an embarrassing issue slides by without comment, no elected official can be held accountable for its existence.
At the same time, a bill was working its way through the Wisconsin legislature that would secure a new mine in Northern Wisconsin. Gogebic Taconite, a mining company based on the state’s northern edge, is seeking to set up an iron-ore mine in the sparsely populated north woods. The company is seeking to make a $1.5 billion investment, which would create thousands of union jobs not only in the northern part of the state, but in Milwaukee, which is home to several companies (P&H Mining Equipment, Caterpillar), that either supply or manufacture mining equipment. The former president of Bucyrus, a manufacturer bought by Caterpillar, says that the bill will help sustain 10,000 manufacturing jobs in the Milwaukee area. (Importantly, the bill doesn’t change any environmental regulations; it simply speeds up the timeline with which permits are approved.)
In the past, this is the type of bill that would have enjoyed bipartisan support. Democrats in the northern part of the state and in Milwaukee would see the economic benefit to their districts.
But this is Wisconsin in 2012. And the public unions run the Democratic party.
In early 2011, the state erupted when Governor Scott Walker virtually eliminated public-sector collective bargaining and required higher pension and health-care contributions from state and local employees. Subsequently, public unions spent tens of millions of dollars trying to recall six Republican state senators that supported Walker’s plan. Walker himself will likely face a recall election in June or July of this year.
It is the expected Walker recall that has lined Democrats up against the mining bill. Walker can’t be seen as having any victories in the lead-up to his election, especially on the issue of job creation. In a poll released just today, Wisconsin residents support the mine by a 52 percent to 33 percent margin.
Yet public support has not shaken the naked union obeisance of announced Walker challenger Kathleen Falk, who last week announced she would veto any budget bill that did not fully restore public-sector collective bargaining. Falk was quickly endorsed by AFSCME and WEAC, the state’s largest teachers’ union. (Scientists are still searching for a planet on which such an overt promise in exchange for financial campaign support is legal.) Not surprisingly, Falk also opposes the mining bill.
It is true, the bill is being held up by one intransigent Republican state senator who is trying to leverage something out of being the deciding vote. (He also voted against Walker’s collective-bargaining bill.) But without the public unions putting the screws to Democrats to sully Walker’s name, this bill would pass with enough votes to let the occasional clueless Republican wander his own confused path.
In the meantime, good union manufacturing jobs in Milwaukee continue to vanish, and the economic plan for most northern Wisconsinites is to wait for the American Pickers guys to show up and buy a pair of rusty candlesticks buried in their garage. The national unions continue to oppose the mine, which would benefit their own members directly.
“There’s not a lot of money in revenge,” says the six-fingered-man-hunting Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. The unemployed factory workers in Milwaukee are about to figure out what Montoya meant. While the public and private unions engage in a spectacular murder-suicide, the jobless will have plenty of time to wonder why their elected officials sacrificed their jobs for political payback.
— Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute and a co-author of the Campaign Manager Survey.
This post demonstrates why this liberal loves The Corner. A multi-paragraph post about jobs in Wisconsin, demonizing unions as the ones to blame. But no mention whatsoever of the fact that Wisconsin has lost more jobs under Scott Walker than any other state, just a vague mention of lost manufacturing jobs (caused by the Unions, of course).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan you share with us which of Governor Walker's policies have caused any job losses, and what the Democrats would do differently that will create jobs?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately for you what you posted is untrue. This is what I like about liberals in Wisconsin--they believe any liberal or union propaganda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseunions have outlived their usefulness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusea long, long, long time ago they were for the worker, now the union bosses are all about money and power for themselves only. sad. and bad for the worker... and our nation.
Please, it was Inigo Montoya who was hunting the six fingered man who killed his father.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood post -- but you totally botched the Princess Bride reference. Inigo Montoya was hunting the six-fingered man, Count Rugen, who murdered Montoya's father.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI read six-fingered-man-hunting as a Hunter of six-fingered men since Six-fingered, Man-hunting would be both six fingered and man hunting.
But I had to parse it twice and give him the benefit of the doubt.
But truly, I have a dizzying intellect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt’s really sad. Continually you see unions putting politics over actually the betterment of their own workers, and Milwaukee seems to be the poster child for this type of problem in Wisconsin. It should be no surprise that in Milwaukee County it was the inflexibility of previously negotiated union contracts that led to hundreds of public employees losing their jobs (External Link
).
You would like to think that eventually ensuring fair compensation for state and local employees wouldn’t be an issue so heavily dominated by partisan politics, but as is being made clear, there’s still a long ways to go for that to be achieved in Wisconsin. Hopefully public employees in the state will begin to see through the rhetoric that unions are putting out and actually being to hold their unions accountable when they pull stunts like this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd yet union disciples like Galt's Bain remain forever blind to what is right in front of their eyes: the Union doesn't care two pins about its members or their jobs. The Union's only concern is the power of the Union. Period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe statement that the bill does not change any environmental regulations is simply not true. In fact the bill removes some wetlands protections, deregulates the withdrawal of water from streams and lakes and allows mining waste to be placed in areas where the DNR has determined that "there is a reasonable probability that the waste will result in a violation of water standards". Maybe the "intrasigent state senator", Dale Schultz wants to be more cautious with Wisconsin's wetlands. Many socially conservative hubters and fishermen share his concern.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe statement that the bill does not change any environmental regulations is just not true. In fact, the bill removes wetland protections, allows for increased withdrawal of water from lakes and streams and allows for mining waste to be placed in areas where there "is a reasonable probability that it will result in a violation of water standards". Perhaps the "intransigent senator" Dale Schultz wishes to be cautious with Wisconsin's fragile wetlands, a view shared by a number of socially conservative sportsmen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA socialist conservative is an oxymoron, just as concern over a few acres of wetland should take precedence over the development of human families. Socialist are the one who allowed obama’s ‘wisconsolynda’ windmills to cut Wisconsin’s goose migration from 2 million to 20,000. Get real man! How big is this mine? If the whole think was under the swamps how much swamp land would be left in Wisconsin? Would these areas flood again after the mines are exhausted or not? Are these mines on top of the ground or deep in the earth? With the swamps be destroyed or just off limits for the life of the mine? If the latter, doesn’t that improve conditions for wildlife by restricting human pressure? You have ulterior motives Mr. socialist, and they are not Conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am fully aware that Inigo Montoya is not the six fingered man. In the article, he is described as "six-fingered-man-hunting," with the dashes indicating all of those words are meant to be taken together. Perhaps a little clumsy, yes, but not worthy of casting me into the Pit of Despair.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe issue with the mining bill has more to do with whether or not the legislature is going to listen to the people of northern Wisconsin, and not so much to do with unions. But writers such as this continue to take their cues from Walker, and mimc the union-bashing. As for the poster who mentioned union bosses, I have to say I've been a union member in the past, and can't say I've ever encountered a union "boss". Union leaders are elected by workers, so they are no more bosses than the politicians we elect. So Walker referring to them as bosses is the pot calling the kettle black.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse