I haven’t commented on a current political event in a while (a year and a half?), and since this is one of my Aspie “special interests” I figured it was about time.
Just in case you haven’t been paying attention to what has been happening in Wisconsin’s state capitol, there have been mass protests the last few days about a proposed law that would, among other things, severely hamstring the ability of state employees to collectively bargain for anything besides wages. The new governor, Scott Walker, along with the Republicans, is trying to push this through in the name of balancing the budget. This triggered the aforementioned protests and, when it looked like the Republicans were going to force a vote on it in the state senate, the Democrats fled the state so there would not be a quorum.
Hearing the various arguments on both sides, I have come to the following conclusions:
1) This move would help the budget deficit, but the budget isn’t the real reason it is being done. Gov. Walker and the Republicans know that the largest campaign contributors to their political opponents come from labor unions. If you hamstring the power of the unions, then they will not retain as many due-paying members and the union would not be able to donate as much money to Democratic candidates.
2) The current benefits for state employees are really good. My friend, who is a graduate student employee at the University of Wisconsin, has the best health insurance plan I have ever seen. This is for a part-time employee who makes around $15,000 per year. It would actually save the government a fair amount of money if state employees had to pay more normal monthly premiums for health insurance. (I’ve heard that the pension plan is also really good, but do not know enough to speak to it.)
Basically, what you seem to have here is what often happens when labor disputes go political. Both sides take extreme positions and refuse to budge. I would think it would make more sense to legislatively cap the insurance and pension benefits for state employees but still allow collective bargaining on the issue. Neither side would be fully happy, but that might be the essence of a good political compromise. But, of course, that would involve the two sides talking to each other, not one side ramming through legislation and the other side fleeing the state to try to stop them.
