Scott Walker has just further endeared himself to federal public-sector unions
Not.
Walker has announced a plan to abolish federal public-sector unions, among other things:
That would take an act of Congress, but Walker said he’s for it because “big-government unions should have no place in the federal workplace.”
Walker also announced his intention to do the following:
-Impose right-to-work laws, under which workers can’t be forced to pay union dues as a condition of their employment, nationwide. Twenty-five states, including Wisconsin, already have such laws. Walker’s proposal, if passed by Congress, would require states to vote to opt out of the right-to-work requirement.
-Prohibit unions from automatically deducting dues from state public employees that are used to pay for political activity. Walker said if the Supreme Court does not address the issue in a pending case, he will send a bill to Congress to change the law.
There’s more, lots more.
The Walker announcement is potentially huge, and transformative. By the way, it would bring us back to FDR’s position on the issue*, although most liberals either don’t know that or would like to keep it hush-hush.
[* The liberal “Politifact” did acknowledge two years ago, albeit reluctantly, that FDR’s position was against public-sector unions having any sort of collective bargaining rights.]
[ADDENDUM: For clarification, I’d like to add that I don’t think Walker has actually made the announcement officially yet, which is to come in a speech. He did make an announcement about his announcement, and in it he cited the FDR precedent. See this:
This idea is not new. Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of America’s most revered liberals, realized just how counter-intuitive it is to allow union bosses to advocate against the best interests of the government. Union bargaining, Roosevelt said, “cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
In fact, until 1962, federal law explicitly prohibited federal workers from collectively bargaining. President Kennedy, however, shrewdly realized that by allowing public sector employees to unionize at the federal level, Democrats would stand to gain votes and hefty political contributions. He was right.
This is an issue on which Walker is well-versed, to say the least.]
IMO if Walker had been politically agile, he would have included some reference to FDR’s position in his announcement (and Truman’s). It would have made it much more difficult for the MSM and the left to dis Walker as some kind of throwback to the pre-union robber barons.
I have been a Walker supporter and am pleased with what he has accomplished for his state, but he seems not yet quite capable of playing that same game on a national level. I wonder why?
T:
I don’t think he’s actually made the announcement yet, which is to come in a speech. But he did cite FDR in his announcement about his announcement. See this:
This is an issue on which Walker is well-versed, to say the least.
T:
Why were you so quick to assume he hadn’t made that connection explicitly? Especially as a Walker supporter?
I’ve long been a Walker supporter, but I’ve been disappointed in his campaign so far. I see this as a chance for him to show people what he’s actually about.
Trump’s rise forced Scott to act in a bold manner.
Cornhead:
I agree that what you say certainly may be true. But I’m not at all sure.
This is Walker’s pet issue, after all. I happen to think he was always trying to make a federal case of it, as it were. I think he would have done this no matter who was the frontrunner, unless it was him. I believe, for example, he would have done it if Jeb had been the frontrunner instead of Trump. I believe it’s Walker’s way of trying to gain traction and seize the spotlight, but it would have been the same against anyone.
Neo:
Agree.
But voters aren’t exactly clamoring for this. Not saying it shouldn’t be done but other issues are higher priority.
Cornhead:
Yes, it’s certainly not the top issue.
But it’s still a big issue; I think a lot of people are angry about it, it’s just that no candidate has ever made it a big issue. We’ll see, I suppose.
“Why were you so quick to assume he hadn’t made that connection explicitly? Especially as a Walker supporter?” [Neo]
In truth, I have followed his, and most of the Republican candidates campaigns somewhat cursorily (just been remarkably busy). The reposts I scanned have only mentioned the “bombshell” of his announcement, yours is the first citation I’ve seen of his FDR reference. It was an assumption on my part.
To be sure, I’m glad he made the reference. I admire not only his success, but his success in the face of such overwhelming odds in Wisconsin. He is one of the few candidates who has a proven track record on which to run, not only in opposing the left, but in his budgetary success as well (Rick Perry was another).
I certainly wish him well and will be rooting from the sidelines.
T:
Agreed.
My fear (exacerbated by the poor showing of Perry, and of Walker so far) is that the conservative candidates with the best track record preparation for the presidency, that of state governor, will all be eliminated because they’re not flashy and angry enough, leaving us with some candidates I like (Fiorina, Carson, Cruz) and some I don’t like (Trump) who have lesser credentials for the actual presidency.
The presidency really is not a position for amateurs, IMHO, although I may end up voting for one .
I also still rather like Christie, although I realize his name is anathema to most conservatives. I’ve heard him speak, though, and been very impressed, and I believe is he about 90% conservative and can get things done. He also has a track record as governor. But he’s doing very poorly in the race so far.
“The presidency really is not a position for amateurs, IMHO, although I may end up voting for one .”
I suggest that a competent amateur (who is a quick study) is fundamentally better than an incompetent professional (Obama being both incompetent and amateurish). It seems more and more, however, that governing is one thing, but campaigning for the opportunity to govern is another thing altogether.
Perhaps this is Walker’s attempt to tap into some of the emotional pot-stirring that Trump has done.
As you know, I have cited the Donald Trump/Denny Crane parallel several times on this blog. I actually think it’s very accurate. Trump campaigns almost as if he were a cartoon and brazenly acts as if he’s saying to the MSM: “I will not be constrained by what you think. I don’t care and I can afford not to care.” Walker’s pronouncement could well be seen in that vein.
Trump takes Newt Gingrich’s intellect and feistiness and makes it visceral; Carly Fiorina takes that same feistiness and gives it class. Perhaps this is Walker’s attempt to give it substance.
A quick addendum:
I didn’t mean to imply that Trump possesses Newt’s intellect. Trump is not a stupid man, but he is not an intellect. I meant to say that Trump takes Newt’s feistiness and turns it visceral.
One further thought:
To the extent that the Republican candidates learn to leverage Trump, they can improve their own campaigns. As I noted above, this may be Walker’s early attempt to do just that. Fiorina is already learning to do just that:
http://twitchy.com/2015/09/14/well-played-fiorina-capitalizes-on-trumps-jackassery-in-a-bold-beautiful-way-video/
Neo wrote (@ 2:31pm):
But it’s still a big issue [public service unions]; I think a lot of people are angry about it, it’s just that no candidate has ever made it a big issue.
It damn well should be a “big issue.” It’s a money-laundering scheme done by “public service” unions on behalf of their favored politicians–in which taxpayers and ordinary citizens get taken to the cleaners:
1) Unions collect dues which are used in part (along with union labor) to help elect candidates that will do their bidding.
2) If these candidates win, they vote for pay increases, valuable benefits and more public employees for the unions that helped to elect them, pumping more money into the cycle to pay for step 1).
3) Lather, rinse, repeat–until the unions run everything and the taxpayer is broke (see California).
As if federal bureaucracies weren’t powerful enough already…
Gary,
Not only is it a money laundering scheme, but does anyone really think that there is any chance in Hell of ever reducing the size of govt as long as unionized employees are guaranteed a perpetual job suckling at the govt teat?
As is generally the case, those who didn’t follow Walker’s multiple victories very closely seem unaware of another huge problem with government employee unions.
In WI at least, those unions all had clauses built into their contracts that made it mandatory for their employers (us) to buy only the union-sponsored health care plan. Walker’s Act 10 allowed the municipalities and school districts to seek competitive bids from private insurers.
Despite sizable cuts in state funding, every one of those entities saved enough money on health care to close significant budget deficits. In total, they realized savings of many tens of millions of dollars that the unions had been overcharging every year..
This didn’t even include liberal Dane County (Madison) because they rushed through union contracts before Act 10 took effect. It also disn’t include the very powerful police, firefighter and prison guard unions, which were not covered under Act 10.
Ironically, that may have cost Tom Barrett, Mayor of Milwaukee, the election. He barely even raised Act 10 as an issue, even though that was the proximate cause of the recall. You see, the prior year, Barrett had used the health care provision of the law to save enough to close an $18 million dollar budget shortfall in Milwaukee.
Romney was hampered by RomneyCare because he was not able to use the unpopular Obamcare as an issue, and Barrett had a similar problem with Act 10. Too bad, so sad.
It makes me wonder how many similar lucrative items are buried in all the other public union contracts nationwide. It certainly might help explain how they can throw so much money into every election cycle.
Well, whoever is elected, the government is morbidly obese, and will requires a major overhaul with competent staffing.
T wrote (@ 4:19pm):
…does anyone really think that there is any chance in Hell of ever reducing the size of govt as long as unionized employees are guaranteed a perpetual job…
Right, not even a snowball’s chance in Hell bloated government will get any smaller with these unions around. However, it’s a sure bet that stupid, intrusive expensive government will get bigger and even more intrusive and expensive. See step 2) in my previous comment.
Better watch out for that SWAT team battering ram at your door at 2 am boys and girls, because if your electronic records shows you supporting Walker or anybody else against the Union Mafias… well, you know.
It certainly might help explain how they can throw so much money into every election cycle.
it’s a mafia laundering network. It’s more extensive than people realize. All the unions are linked together, including the Lawyer unions that aren’t called unions.
Doesn’t Communications Workers of America v. Beck already prohibit unions from collecting dues from members that are used to pay for political activity?
Granted, there’s no statute in place to enforce this.