The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

Public Sector Unions and Basic Morality

By on 2.23.11 @ 6:06AM

If words having meaning, public employee unions do not.

The spectacle in Wisconsin has many of us rethinking the underlying grounds for public sector unions. Many Americans are thinking in terms of the obvious financial implications. But surely others are looking deeper to question the moral underpinnings of these unions and their place in public service.

Years ago President Franklin Roosevelt called the idea of public sector unions “unthinkable and intolerable.” Not long after, AFL-CIO President George Meany declared that it was “impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” They were both speaking to the morality of public servants making demands on taxpayers’ earnings under the threat of withholding public services — or as FDR put it, “looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it.”

Roget’s Thesaurus lists moral as: virtuous, honorable, conscientious, righteous, upright, and good; and unions will no doubt claim those qualities for themselves. But is it righteous for garbage collectors to walk off the job and allow filth to pile up in the streets? Would you call it virtuous for striking policemen to give crime a holiday? Or honorable for firemen to desert their posts? And teachers — can they be seen as conscientious as they organize against children and abandon their classrooms and their obligations — as we are seeing in Wisconsin? Or could we call legislators upright when they skip out on their legislative duties? Undoubtedly, all this is what FDR foresaw, and what Pennsylvania union leader Gerald MacIntee meant when he urged his workers to “close down this God-damned state.”

We need to remember — as the Wall Street Journal pointed out — that “collective bargaining for government workers is not a God-given or constitutional right.” True — and though we take them for granted today, public unions arrived on the federal level by way of executive order only in 1962, and states quickly followed. After five decades, various strikes and walk-outs, $3.32 trillion in state unfunded pension liabilities, and the current state of public education, it is hard to make the case that public sector unions are doing this country much good. And even harder to sustain is the moral case for public sector unions. They have become exactly what FDR feared they would.

Also from Roget’s come these words: dishonorable, conscienceless, unconscionable, unscrupulous and questionable. These are words that well describe “the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it.” FDR’s “unthinkable and intolerable” is taking place in Wisconsin today and who-knows-where tomorrow. For right’s sake, it is time to get rid of public unions and return to public service.

About the Author

Manon McKinnon is a writer living in Falls Church, Virginia.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (50) |

Darin| 2.23.11 @ 6:46AM

For those who don't see a problem with public employees being part of a union, consider. The military are public employees. Should they too be able to form a union? Don't forget the National Guard and Coast Guard are part of the military. Should a natural disaster hit, do you want these people staying at home because they are on strike in protest to having to pay more medical expenses out-of-pocket? If you support public employees being in a union, you by definition support the military being able to form a union. And when the next disaster hits, don't count on any member of the military helping out.

USSAlabama| 2.23.11 @ 10:07AM

Like there is not a conflict of interest at all. The public sector is paid with taxpayer $ ans asks the government to withhold dues from the paychecks and it is given to pol's election funds.

Daniel DeSalvo wrote "JFK saw how in states such as New York and Wisconsin, where public unions were already in place, local liberal pols benefited politically and financially. He took the idea national."

A 50 year mistake that has to end.

Mike D.| 2.23.11 @ 7:36AM

Well, its real simple. Public sector unions should be outlawed and should have never been allowed in the first place. If somebody doesn't like working in the public sector(without a union) then go work in the private sector. If workers want to unionize in the private sector, so be it, but don't come running for a taxpayer bailout when their pension plan is broke. Its not my or any other taxpayers obligation to pay for somebodies retirement that was agreed to between some shortsighted company and its extorting union workers. Time to end the protected species status of unions and it stable of bought corrupt politicians. As far as the cowards who call themselves Wisconsin State Senators stay in Illinois, land of public corruption where they belong. I'm sure the unions are covering their vacation.

MikeD| 2.23.11 @ 8:48AM

Mike,
When you post your comments I almost forget which one I am! Very well stated! As I read you post, I was again reminded that there is no constitutional basis for much of the current financial merry-go-round engaged in by the federal government and the public employee unions; but the tacit support and even encouragement of this situation is clearly illustrating every reason against their existence. Of course it was a democrat that started the whole mess, in the usual way that these things begin, as an executive order by JFK instead of allowing any voice from the people who actually pay the bills.

The democratic party, in their inherent devious nature, quickly saw that they could capitalize on the public employee unions existence to fill their party coffers with more and more taxpayer's money. Without this stealth tax extracted from the government unions, the democrats would actually have to compete on the battlefield of ideas rather than through the extortion of one cl;ass of citizens.

When the obscene and unquestioning devotion of the left leaning media is added to the mix it makes the democratic advantages nearly insurmountable. The simple fact that the democrats don't win EVERY election indicates two important aspects:

First, even with all their advantages, they frequently lose, sometimes in spectacular fashion as they did last November when the biggest 'elephant in the room' was the precarious financial position of so many States and the federal government itself. What makes the current childish antics of the democratic state legislators so ludicrous is that they cannot deny that the Republicans were elected specifically to do just what they're doing; to rein in costs, primarily by removing the immoral ability of the democrats to play their money game to fund their political activities on the backs of the public unions.

Second, they managed to lose spectacularly even with a huge financial advantage and the unquestioning adoration of the usual suspects in the media. This was, of course, a result of the spreading influence and uncensored information from the internet and less 'controlled' news outlets like Fox News. This was clearly illustrated by the fool who did nothing but scream "Fox Lies!" over and over on camera last week in Madison. I wonder how his students and their parents perceive him now.

We are watching an historical confluence of events and attitudes in the same vein as that seen in 1848, and 1968. The events of those years may pale in comparison to what happens this year as long as the GOP holds firm and does what they were clearly elected to do. One way or another, the die will be cast for the next two generations: Either the grip of the corrupt democrats and their deadly ability to use public employee unions to destroy our country will finally be snapped; or the republicans will, once again, catch the frequent spinal affliction (Lakabakbone) that has seen them cave in time and time again to the democrats. But, THIS time, there is no mistaking the mood, the anger, and the mandate of the voters to bring the corrupt marriage between public employee unions and the democratic 'cash extraction' machine to a swift, and unlamented end. Now is the time. Are you listening GOP?

Apparently Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels isn't; he's already been the first to show his RINO credentials and hand his severely compromised backbone to the democrats even before they asked for it. Apparently, he wanted to get in early to avoid the rush. Cross him off the list of presidential potentials. Who's next?

Brian Mc| 2.23.11 @ 9:21AM

An executive order by JFK? Holy Moses; am I the only dimwit on this site who failed to know this key point in all the festivities? That is truly a revelation that has rung my bell better than a third cup of joe, this a.m., Mike. The monopoly on the school systems is one of many anchors about this Republic's ankles and a little free enterprise would go a long way in severing the tie.

I haven't seen any of the reports coming in from Madison yet but I can clearly see them in my mind's eye from the descriptions I've read here. These activities we are witnessing from the left will only help to ensure a huge landslide in 2012...if only half of what is stated about the video reports is true. If you want mob rule, hire a union. The accusation that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water will ring hollow just so long as the truth of the situation prevails. And those videos...keep 'em coming.

Mike D.| 2.23.11 @ 9:32AM

I whole heartedly agree on the 1848 reference. Either stop it here, and by it I mean, a rapidly tyrannical federal goverment and its RINO and Marxist/Socialist enablers which like the computer in Terminator 3 has become self-aware, defensive about its existence or go down the road of possible Civil War, secession of states, and/or financial collapse ala early 1860's. This is a pivotal moment in American History and will determine our future as a country. Amazingly, there are so many opportunities for heroic leadership roles that will echo in American history for all time and so few having the fortitude and courage to step up and take them.

Curly Smith| 2.23.11 @ 7:48AM

Timing is everything... you wouldn't see the need for a public employee strike if we had a nationalized health care system because we'd be only too willing to pay more taxes in exchange for life-saving care. I know, that's an extreme example, it's not like they hold our children hostage now...

Seapuss| 2.23.11 @ 8:27AM

Did you notice that Mitch Daniels withdrew from the 2012 presidential race yesterday? Daniels thought he gave a speech backing away from the Indiana Legislature's effort to curtail public union collective bargaining yesterday. But as far as I was concerned, Daniels was throwing his fellow Republicans in both Indiana AND Wisconsin under the bus, and he lost any claim to my vote in 2012.

MikeD| 2.23.11 @ 10:26AM

Seapuss,
My point exactly. Please see my post a few spaces above yours.

Brian Mc; This is why our libs do not want history taught in the schools. Keeping the electorate ignorant is their tool to control. Glad to add just a bit to the mix.

idalily| 2.23.11 @ 3:32PM

Please learn your facts before you post. There's an excellent piece about Daniels' position in National Review Online. His position is based on his role as Governor of Indiana and the situation there. Read that before you decide.

missbosslady| 2.23.11 @ 7:17PM

Sorry idalily, but the speed with which Daniels backed down will be seen on BOTH sides as fecklessness. Plain and simple. His neighbor in Wisconsin has played his hand far better and is providing the example that we are thirsting for, so yes, Mitch blew it.

voted against carter| 2.23.11 @ 7:31PM

Mitch Daniels IS A RINO. We ned to cleans the Republican Party of ALL RINOs.
PERIOD.

NO COMPROMISE on anything with the Dumb-O-cRATs. Period.

Dan Jones| 2.23.11 @ 8:54PM

Yes, he is a RINO. It only took one incident to convince me: he caters to the ethanol crooks, as do the other midwest presidential aspirants. No need to know any more.

cavan1| 2.23.11 @ 10:37AM

I ran a public emplyees union for three years (AFSCME affiliate).
The experience turned me into a red-blooded conservative.
Dues money was used for lobbying for affirmative action, abortion rights, government schools, government healthcare, feminist agenda, homosexual/lesbien agenda, "peace through weakness" ( anti-military), environmental agenda (global warming), etc.
No dissent was allowed.
The union was obviously an attachment of the Demorat Party.
What I have written is obvious, what I experienced was first hand.

MtTopPatriot| 2.23.11 @ 10:46AM

Follow the money. Without collective bargaining, without mandatory union dues, enforced even on workers who are not union, the cash cow goes dry.
We are talking 100's of millions of democratic slush fund money to grease the wheels of the culture of corruption out of control.
Fire every union member.
It is beautifully simple:
They need us to pay them. We don't need them to live our lives.

Mike D.| 2.23.11 @ 10:54AM

And now you have some leftist nutjob Democrat in Mass. calling for some blood in the streets. Remember all that civility preaching by the leftist drones in from the statist media. Of course our America hating godless comrade in chief is stoking the fires behind the scenes. Buckle up people, this is going to be a rough ride.

Al Adab| 2.23.11 @ 11:30AM

You two just about hit the nail on the head. Follow the money. What we are witnessing is the beginning of the revolution of the parasites against the producers who pay the costs. Both sides have staked out their positions. It will not be pretty.

Impeach Don't Wait| 2.23.11 @ 8:00PM

Let's give 'em a run for "our" money!

The children have had their fun, the adults are taking over.

The Bruce| 2.23.11 @ 9:43PM

"Buckle up people, this is going to be a rough ride."

I suggest a 5-point harness, because I agree --- she gonna get ugly.

Appleby| 2.23.11 @ 11:36AM

I am enjoying the signs waved by teachers, some of which containi obvious spelling errors. For example, I saw one that said "Jobs for teachesr at descent [sic] wages".

idalily| 2.23.11 @ 3:32PM

Comedy gold, isn't it?

The Bruce| 2.23.11 @ 9:52PM

I saw one that read, "We demand to be herd."

I laughed out loud at that one because, in this case, the sign still rings true.

scythe| 2.23.11 @ 11:44AM

Thank you for bringing it up. Socialism corrupts which is precisely why it is supported by the left. In fact, Godlessness is a prerequisite for leftism. Ever wonder why God is verboten in Western left wing hell-holes? Because Marxism et al are political theories that contravene the existence of a higher authority. Check your 10 Commandments folks. And see how many have to be sundered in order for leftism to triumph. From the French Revolution onwards scrubbing the religious underpinnings from every aspect of society must be achieved before immorality can succeed. As I watch the public sector union parasites caterwaul for their "benefits" I cannot help but wonder DON'T THEY SEE HOW THEY ARE HURTING PEOPLE?? Do they give a damn? Thou shalt Not Steal. Thou shalt not Commit Murder. Thou shalt not Covet. Thou shalt not Bear False Witness. Honor Thy Father and Mother. Honor God. The greed, envy, rapacious lust for other people's property, the lies, the slander, on and on. Unions corrupt because socialism corrupts. Leftism is based on a political philosophy that an individual is entitled to take, to destroy, to slander, and to kill if necessary. But what the useful idiots don't realize is that they suffer the most because they are USED and CORRUPTED . Leftism is the political equivalent of the picture of Dorian Grey. Hideous and perverted.

Petronius| 2.23.11 @ 11:52AM

I Am a Member of the National Association of Letter Carriers. My union struck the old Post Office Dept. once back in 1970 when postman in the top pay grade could not earn enough to support himself much less a family. Some substitutes worked 12 to 16 hours, 6 days a week plus Sunday collections at straight time with no benefits or uniform allowance until 1964. Our first negotiated contract under the leadership of our President Eugene Rademacher in 1972 redressed the balance.
Today technology has displaced us to a great extent. Letter Carriers are still out there because of the last mile problem and security issues over financial instruments in the mails.
When President Reagan thought he could provoke us into striking, he was alleged to have said, "they're overpaid delivery boys." When he met some of our best Members at the Heroes luncheon, he took that back. After presenting the citations he never again spoke of us that way.
Much has been posted here about the present sorry state of our postal service and what is to come of it. Many times I have written about management sabotage, Dickensian horseshit work rules, and all the waste in the system. And like the people behind the cheddar curtain, we too are divided. I go to the meetings and plead the cause of reason in the face of economically illiterate Luddites.
Our contract expires come November. And we enter negotiations with a tarnished reputation after a few carriers were arrested by the Inspectors for depredation and malfeasance last year. Management has attempted to destroy the confidence of the public by forcing us to use methods that impede delivery efficiency.
At our regional conference this weekend I will tell my national officers that we make demands in working conditions that improve the viability of the Postal Service instead of salary and benefit increases.
I don't know any members of other public sector unions. But one thing they need to learn is that those things which increase contentment and happiness on and off the job cannot be done or acquired with money.

missbosslady| 2.23.11 @ 7:22PM

Increase contentment and happiness?

Good grief!

I hate to break it to you Petronius, but it's not anyone's responsiblity to increase your contentment and happiness, it's yours.

What a ridiculous post.

voted against carter| 2.23.11 @ 7:39PM

Sorry dude,

My brother and sister in law "work" (and I use the term loosely) for the post office.

If it was NOT ILLEGAL for NON government carriers to carry regular mail the U.S. POST OFFICE would have been run out of business YEARS ago.

I HATE unions.

ANY UNIONS.
They are a CANCER on the USA.

AS is MOST of the willing members.

I have belonged to unions in states were it was the only way I could work.

Not in the UNION?

Sorry can't hire you.

UNION dues are kick backs to be allowed to work.

WillyP | 2.25.11 @ 2:02PM

My wife was a postal carrier for many years, and a union officer. she will tell you in no uncertain terms, that while the unions did in fact greatly increase her pay and benefits, they caused nothing but grief and malcontent within the post office. What do you think the effect on moral is when slackers are carried by the hard-workers, who are then let go for some technicality? She left the post office for reasons mostly related to the adversarial employee-employer relation ship that the union lived off of. For example, while she had plenty of time off, she couldn't get a random day or two off to stay home with sick children. To take such a day off would have been terminable.

Thomas| 2.23.11 @ 11:58AM

There are two separate issues concerning public employee unions. The first is right of individuals to organize for their own benefit. The second is the amount of influence that organized labor unions have on elected politicians.

In the first case, organization, no one on this site would step forward and say that such organization, unless it advocates the violent overthrow of a government entity in the United States, should be outlawed. There was even widespread support for such activity as recently as last week in Cairo. Yet, people here are comfortable with the government abolishing the right of its citizens to organize for the purpose of negotiating for salaries and working conditions. Hardly seems like a cry for freedom, now does it?

The second thing is how organized labor spends its money. I'm sorry, but that is pretty much a privacy issue. How private citizens spend their earnings should not be the business of the government, any government. And, as evidenced in Wisconsin the Republicans seem to be targeting only those labor organizations that support the Democrats.

Now, if this was strictly an economic issue, the Governor of Wisconsin has the power, under the current public employee contracts to request that state public sector employees modify their compensation packages or face lay-offs to get expenditures within budgetary limits. This is standard in almost every employment contract in the country. Yet, even though the unions have agreed to the modifications in the compensation packages of the workers, the Governor and the Republicans in the legislature are still demanding that the employees be restricted to bargaining only for salary and then they can only present a request for a salary increase that is below a certain threshold. Except, of course, for the police, fire and sheriff's unions, all of which, coincidentally, supported the Governor's bid for election. And, the proposed legislation would effect, not only state employees, but all government employees, including those paid directly from local taxing districts such as municipalities and school districts. This in not about the state budget.

Remember, a state can pass a law banning "closed shops" making union membership optional. This is the case in many states. It is also illegal under federal law, and that of many states, for public safety employees to strike. It is unlawful, in some states, for any public sector employees to strike. Yet, none of these things are part of what the Governor is asking for. What he is asking for, and what the Republican legislators support, is crippling or destroying unions that choose to support their opponents. This has nothing to do economics and everything to do with political payback and patronage, a la Chicago politics.

Also, the employees, unlike the legislators, do not set their compensation packages. Elected politicians do. It is the responsibility of the elected politician to have the welfare of ALL his constituent at heart. They are the ones responsible for compensation packages, unfunded or under funded pension plans, etc. Not the employees or their union.

This is simply nothing more than an attempt to use legislation to rob political opponents of future support and funding. It is unconscionable when done by liberals and Democrats and morally reprehensible when done by conservatives and Republicans.

Brian Mc| 2.23.11 @ 12:15PM

Key words are, "Seem to be targeting..." This would be totally dependant upon where one gets their talking points. It's funny that I just got done watching a couple videos that refute emphatically your claim that the governor is targeting dem-leaning unions while keeping a hands-off approach to those that backed him. B.S. of the highest and most inflammatory order. Wow does this sort of crap move fast, even when the facts are right there, side by side with the atrocious propoganda. The vote totals don't lie...dems do.

Paul McGrath| 2.23.11 @ 5:16PM

In response to your first point, I disagree. Government employees should not have the right to organize. Private employees, yes. Government employees, no. Why? Because private employees do not have a say in who manages them. The managers of government employees are elected. By the people . If there are not enough government employees, then elected officials will increase their pay or benefits to attract more. If government employees' benefits and compensation seem out of line with the private sector, then elected officials may reduce these benefits. Simple. It's how it has worked for most of our nation's history.

The second problem with government employees' unions is that it is--obviously--a corrupting influence on society. Using taxpayer dollars, unions bribe elected officials, who use taxpayer dollars to increase their constituents' benefits, who use their taxpayer-financed increased benefits to pay more bribes with taxpayer money. It's a never ending circle. Even more infuriating is that they use taxpayer money--MY MONEY--to pay for political ads and politicians that I disagree with!

The result of course, is as we have seen: States are heavily in debt, the education system is a disaster, and politicians are completely beholden to unions.

You then go on to say that: "How private citizens spend their earnings should not be the business of the government." But, as I pointed out, they are not private citizens; they are public employees, and how they use my money IS my business, and exactly why voters all over the country voted in politicians who vowed to end this insane practice.

But I doubt I've convinced you. If you have not been convinced by the literally hundreds of articles and comments on this site that have already addressed this issue far better than me, you are a lost cause.

But I appreciate your civility.

The Bruce| 2.23.11 @ 10:16PM

A good read, thanks. Saved me from writing my own. Some people just don't seem to understand the difference between private and public sector unions.

What a private company and a union negotiate isn't of any concern to me.

But when public sector employees are required to kick back a portion of their salary, that I'M PAYING for, to a union and then that union funnels it into the political coffers of a party without my consent, I take issue.

When you think about it, government employees aren't technically paying union dues. Their salaries are payed by me, and therefore I'm being force to pay union dues through taxation.

Brian Mc| 2.23.11 @ 11:59AM

Good point not overlooked in your last sentence, Petronius. Happiness comes from within and we are awash in a sea of parasites who demand that it come from the government; they have been indoctrinated by the left to believe that it is possible when nothing could be further from the truth. Your final analysis hit the nail smack-dab on the head!

Dave | 2.23.11 @ 12:09PM

Earlier this morning, I was reading the recent comments made by Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters. Schaitberger blithers that "This is an outright assault on worker's voices ... blah-blah, blah and more blah."

Well, let me 'splain something to you, Lucy. This (alleged) assault isn't about shutting off worker's voices or their (alleged) rights. What it is, Harold ... is a frontal attack on the method you and yours go about in collecting and padding your wages, lifetime healthcare coverage and cushy pensions.

Now, let's put one foot in front of the other, Harry. No one reading this or any other post thinks firefighters and law enforcement personel aren't at the top of the taxpayer's necessity food chain. The ARE the tops. What's absolutely and completly out of whack is the unbridled funding for all those above mentioned benefits by the *teacher's unions (*the communist patterned NEA) and many of the featherbed employees pushing pencils in those state "service" offices across the fruited plane.

No sir, Harold - there's no actual assault going on against (so-called) workers voices or rights. Try putting THAT argument to the guy flipping char broiled burgers, doing oil changes at Snappy Lube or that hard working crew maintaining your nice union lawns. What this is all about is not about "rights" -- but the "rights" some within your more-government circle somehow THINK they have a right to in the accumulation of that endless stream of taxpayer funded goodies.

Underneath your and b.s. and spin - we both know how the system works. Even that hack you had toss those softballs to you on ...(what is it) Hardball?

Yeah, that was a tough show to be on.

Meanwhile, Harold ... see 'ya in the arena. One workin' now - 18 to go. So far.

Pat| 2.23.11 @ 6:42PM

Conversely, many of us aren’t rethinking the grounds for public sector unions – there are no grounds. During collective bargaining, the unions don’t apply to the voters for approval of their contract demands, the politicians alone are asked to approve – but these same politicians reserve that right to themselves in exchange for union support at the polls. So, objection number 1 is that both sides aren’t adversarial during collective bargaining, they’re all seated on the same side of the bargaining table. The unions demand a 5% raise, the politicians say: “would you settle for 10%... ?”.

Objection number 2 is that, like all parasites, the public sector unions are in horror of draining their hosts to the point of financial death. So when the treasury is empty, the unions are willing to negotiate a monetary reduction, small enough to keep their hosts weak but not big enough to restore health. There is no competing state government to enrich – no competitor whose business will boom while the union strikes the designated victim. Unlike the UAW, public sector unions can’t destroy their own industry, but, exactly like the UAW, they are ready to squeal for loans to their employers from the Feds.

Objection number 3 is that both the public sector unions and their politician allies abhor strikes. Strike and make the public very angry, make the public question just how badly they need your services – where’s the fun in that? So, empty threats to strike are just that – empty. And a union that fears a wildcat strike – whose members aren’t ready for personal sacrifice - has no teeth. Except in the public sector that is.

voted against carter| 2.23.11 @ 7:23PM

Poor Wisconsin teachers! Average salary is $52,644 PLUS benefits!

Don’t you just feel so sorry for the average Wisconsin teacher?

They work a WHOPPING 9 MONTHS out of the year,
and have an average salary of at least $52,644.

A 3 MONTHS PAYED VACATION A YEAR. Must be nice

This doesn’t include all the benefits they get at the
expense of the taxpayer such as their pensions and health care.

WHICH THEY DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO AT ALL.

YOU THE TAX PAYER PAY IT,... out of YOUR pay check.

Which you work at for 12 MONTHS a year and MAYBE, you get a 2 week vacation.

The graduation rate in Milwaukee public schools is 46 percent.

The graduation rate for African-Americans in Milwaukee public schools is 34 percent.

Shouldn’t somebody be protesting that?

UNIONS SUCK. PERIOD.

I have ALWAYS been able to negotiate a better deal than ANY union.

Be the BEST and you do not need UNIONS.

Union are for lazy or mediocre hacks.

I HATE UNIONS. You want UNIONS?? Fine.

Go get a job in DETROIT. Oh,.. wait you can't. THERE ARN'T ANY!!!

AND THE REST OF AMERICA pretty soon too.

Thanks UNIONS. AFL-CIO, UAW, SEIU, TUA, WGA.

UNIONS are Destroying America.

Look at Detroit MI to see what the UNION's AND the DemocRAT party have planned for America.

A ONCE Great American City COMPLETELY DESTROYED
BY the DemocRAT Party and their UNION masters.

WAY to go AFL-CIO, UAW, AFT, and SEIU.

This IS what they WILL do to YOUR town if you LET them.

C.K. Amos| 2.23.11 @ 8:59PM

"The spectacle in Wisconsin has many of us rethinking the underlying grounds for public sector unions."

It has me rethinking what I should continue to pay a certain fraction of my taxes.

They go to Obama's IRS. There, a fraction of those and and everyone else's taxes then get involuntarily distributed--that is, taxation with representation--as contributions to scams such as Porkulus I and bailout of GM and Chrysler which was ostensibly to Democrat donors such as SEIU and other public-service unions, as well as UAW. Then the public-service unions contribute $400 million dollars or so to Obama's and other Democrats' campaigns. The UAW contributes, too.

This is no longer negotiable. This must stop.

Maybe what's going on in Wisconsin is analogous to the Battle of Lexington Green on April 19, 1775?

Perhaps we're seeing the second rendition of Patriot's Day.

Maybe it's inescapably time for the king and his party to be unmistakably rejected.

Osamas Pajamas| 2.24.11 @ 1:04AM

Well, the bright side to striking teachers is that they have less time to whiz Democrat propaganda on the brains of the kids --- except for those kids whom the teachers have dragged along right into the union riots and demos.

Slingshot| 2.24.11 @ 2:16AM

Go over to Townhall.com and read Ann Coulter's take on these unions. Right on target as usual for her.

Marc Jeric| 2.24.11 @ 2:39AM

Government employees unions shoul be prosecuted under RICO laws as being criminal enterprises against the people. Jack Kennedy gave them the right to unionize, and Johnson extended that "right" to all public unions - federal, state, county, and municipal unions.
It is a law of nature that, given time, all unions will fall into the hands of either the Mafia or the communist (no difference, except the latter are more deadly).

MOS was 71331| 2.24.11 @ 7:26AM

In 1919, Calvin Coolidge, then Governor of Massachusetts, summoned the entire Massachusetts Guard to put down the Boston police strike. That show of force rapidly caused the strike to collapse and earned for the governor the reputation of a strict enforcer of law and order. His statement at the time, summoned the entire Massachusetts Guard — a show of force that rapidly caused the strike to collapse and earned for the governor the reputation of a strict enforcer of law and order. His statement at the time still holds true: "“There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time.”

PolishKnight| 2.24.11 @ 12:05PM

Before we dig up the lying bones of FDR and laud him for being against the public sector unions, keep in mind that he was a wartime president (dragging the USA into an unpopular war by provoking the Axis powers into an attack) and was an old-time socialist who wanted government control of the workers AND their wages!

Indeed, nothing illustrates that the USA is not yet a socialist state moreso than the fact that we have public sector unions that operated for so long without taking the country down. Just as cars require oil, high paying public sector jobs require taxable receipts from external sources. Cuba pays for theirs via cheap Canadian tourists and cigar exports. When everyone yearns to be a public sector worker, then the assimilation is complete.

That is, people can YEARN for those positions but not everyone can have them and ergo the primary fallacy of socialism reveals itself: Not EVERYONE can enjoy affluence in the socialist empire. There's still poor people. Instead of a blue blood rich capitalist crony Rothschild telling you that you're going to starve in a low wage private job, there's a blue blood rich socialist crony Rothschild telling you that you're going to starve to death in a low wage private job IF YOU'RE LUCKY! When they get too many poor that they can't control, they kill them by the millions.

Isn't that so much nicer than evil, bad "capitalism?"

ModerateScott| 2.24.11 @ 12:28PM

It is unfortunate that the quotes from FDR in this article are taken out of context in a way that totally changes their intended meaning.

FDR never "called the idea of public sector unions 'unthinkable and intolerable,'" as asserted by this author. To suggest that he did is dishonest and very poor journalism.

The quotes from FDR come from a letter he wrote on August 16, 1937, to Mr. Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees. The entire text of the letter can be found here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu.....pid=15445.

In the letter, FDR says: "Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs." He goes on to say that public employees have the same reasonable desire for fair working conditions as private sector workers, and that it "is both natural and logical" for them to organize to present these issues to their employer, as long as they pay "meticulous attention ... to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government."

Roosevelt makes clear his view that strikes and "militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees." It is these choices, NOT the existence of unions themselves, which FDR calls "unthinkable and intolerable."

Whether Manon McKinnon's misuse of this quote from FDR was intentional or just grossly negligent, some explanation of this shoddy journalism is clearly necessary.

simon templar| 2.25.11 @ 1:15AM

Really..a misquote..see below post for full text. I think you need to do some explaining.

simon templar| 2.25.11 @ 1:12AM

From an article in the Washington Examiner:
Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: “Meticulous attention,” the president insisted in 1937, “should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” The reason? F.D.R. believed that “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....z1EwrNQVBa

SfcUsaRET| 2.25.11 @ 1:53AM

I hate repeating myself. As a Ret Vet, there are only three classes of American's; Vet's, Great American's and Civillian's. Civillian's ride the backs of the latter. They have only five things in life; eat, sleep, play, fornicate, and then work. While they are working, they are thinking of the other four. Ok, Later........

Bennett Callaghan| 5.26.11 @ 8:03PM

Hey everyone,

If you are reading this article, I assume you might be interested in morality and moral dilemmas. We are currently collecting participants for a study being conducted through John Jay College on moral dilemmas and decision-making.
If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey, which should take about an hour of your time, and afterward, you will be given the chance to enter your email address into a $300 lottery drawing.

Here is the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FCZCBD2

Thank you very much.

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:47AM

The spectacle in Wisconsin has many of us rethinking the underlying grounds for public sector unions. Many Americans are thinking in terms of the obvious financial implications. But surely others are looking deeper to question the moral underpinnings of these unions and their place in public service.

Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 2:58AM

is good

العاب | 4.11.12 @ 5:27PM

Good grief!

More Articles by Manon McKinnon

More Articles From A Further Perspective

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

May 17, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Pick Obama’s Brain

May 16, 2013 | Paul Kengor

What Is It About Benghazi?

May 15, 2013 | Andrew B. Wilson

Neighborhood Watch, Anyone?

May 14, 2013 | Ralph R. Reiland

The Politicization Crusade

May 8, 2013 | Ron Ross

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/23/public-sector-unions-and-basic

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|91 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|114 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|54 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|92 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|53 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 1:07PM

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 11:14AM

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Pick Obama's Brain

Paul Kengor | 5.16.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Pray and Grow Rich

Christopher Orlet | 5.16.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.