Move Over Chris Christie - Scott Walker (R) Governor of Wisconsin – Breaking the Back of the Public Unions – A New Sheriff In Town

Scott Walker, R Governor of Wisconsin - image LA Times Blog


Governor Scott Walker, of the State of Wisconsin, has in the past few weeks, worked with his legislature to reduce the budget, and bring fiscal sanity to the State of Wisconsin. The problem he faces, that all State and Federal CEO’s face, is the hold on the public sector by unions, specifically the Teachers unions. From an increase in individual pension contributions, to an increase in the percentage an employee has to pay for health insurance (similar to the private sector), to, perhaps, the most important concept since unions no longer were a necessity with the exception of those laborers whose working conditions were so perilous that lives were at stake (the original intent of unions – see A brief history of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire and it’s impact on organized labor from Cornell).

What Governor Walker is proposing is hardly unfair:

Pension contributions: Currently, state, school district and municipal employees that are members of the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) generally pay little or nothing toward their pensions. The bill would require that employees of WRS employers, and the City and County of Milwaukee contribute 50 percent of the annual pension payment. The payment amount for WRS employees is estimated to be 5.8 percent of salary in 2011.

Health insurance contributions: Currently, state employees on average pay approximately 6 percent of annual health insurance premiums. This bill will require that state employees pay at least 12.6 percent of the average cost of annual premiums. In addition, the bill would require changes to the plan design necessary to reduce current premiums by 5 percent. Local employers participating in the Public Employers Group Health insurance would be prohibited from paying more than 88 percent of the lowest cost plan. The bill would also authorize the Department of Employee Trust Funds to use $28 million of excess balances in reserve accounts for health insurance and pharmacy benefits to reduce health insurance premium costs.

Health insurance cost containment strategies: The bill directs the Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Group Insurance Board to implement health risk assessments and similar programs aimed at participant wellness, collect certain data related to assessing health care provider quality and effectiveness, and verify the status of dependents participating in the state health insurance program. In addition, it modifies the membership of the Group Insurance Board to require that the representative of the Attorney General be an attorney to ensure the board has access to legal advice among its membership.

Pension changes for elected officials and appointees: The bill modifies the pension calculation for elected officials and appointees to be the same as general occupation employees and teachers. Current law requires these positions to pay more and receive a different multiplier for pension calculation than general classification employees. Under the state constitution, this change will be effective for elected officials at the beginning of their next term of office.

Modifications to Wisconsin Retirement System and state health insurance plans: The bill directs the Department of Administration, Office of State Employment Relations and Department of Employee Trust Funds to study and report on possible changes to the Wisconsin Retirement System, including defined contribution plans and longer vesting periods. The three agencies must also study and report on changes to the current state health insurance plans, including health insurance purchasing exchanges, larger purchasing pools, and high-deductible insurance options.

General fund impact – Authorize the Department of Administration Secretary to lapse or transfer from GPR and PR appropriations (excluding PR appropriations to the University of Wisconsin) to the general fund estimated savings of approximately $30 million from implementing these provisions for state employees in the current fiscal year (2010-11). Segregated funds would retain any savings from these measures.

State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations:

Collective bargaining – The bill would make various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. These changes take effect upon the expiration of existing contracts. Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.

Career executive transfers – The bill would allow state employees in the career executive positions to be reassigned between agencies upon agreement of agency heads.

Limited term employees (LTE) – The bill would prohibit LTE's from being eligible for health insurance or participation in the Wisconsin Retirement System.

State employee absences and other work actions – If the Governor has declared a state of emergency, the bill authorizes appointing authorities to terminate any employees that are absent for three days without approval of the employer or any employees that participate in an organized action to stop or slow work.

Quality Health Care Authority – The bill repeals the authority of home health care workers under the Medicaid program to collectively bargain.

Child care labor relations – The bill repeals the authority of family child care workers to collectively bargain with the State.

University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) Board and Authority – The bill repeals collective bargaining for UWHC employees. State positions currently employed by the UWHC Board are eliminated and the incumbents are transferred to the UWHC Authority.

University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff - The bill repeals the authority of UW faculty and academic staff to collectively bargain.

(Click anywhere in this section to view full proposal)

It is not so much that the Governor would want the State employees to join the private sector in making minor adjustments and paying more into both pension and health, it is the fact that employers are no longer required to collect union dues, (estimated at approximately $500 monthly) and that employees have the right to opt out of joining a union. So-long collective bargaining – for every conceivable public union in the State of Wisconsin with critical exceptions: The exempt employees are those that should be unionized (those whose jobs are hazardous (see Factory Fire history for edification) including Fire, Police (local and State).
The powerful teachers and public service employees went, for lack of a better word, ballistic. They have marched on the Capital, at the urging of groups such as Socialistworker.org, and as a contingency plan, should those teachers and bloated bureaucrats get a bit out of hand, the Governor has called up the Wisconsin National Guard. to keep the peace. Of course, the unions paint a picture of an oppressive regime in an attempt to get some sympathy from teh General Public: See Wisconsin Governor Threatens to Use National Guard against State Works at democracynow.org.

Herein lays the crux of the problem: Wisconsin is attempting to salvage its economy, Walker has a sensible approach which would merely add money (no union dues) to state employees, while asking them to contribute more to their health and benefit programs. The Unions, who use those dues to fund high salaries for management and donate to their favorite political party, are well, unhappy that they are about to be barred from taking advantage of workers who don’t need unions in the first place (say teachers specifically).
Public (general) sympathy would lay with the Governor, according with Gallup’s last Trust in Institutions Polling: In Brief: Gallup rates the public trust in institutions in annual polling: 2010 gave the lowest rank to Congress, Organized Labor was ranked slightly above Big Business at (19%) and below Television News (23%), the Public Schools were ranked under the office of the President at 38%, with the President in the middle at 51%. What this tells us is that in the case of Chris Christie in New Jersey and now Scott Walker the Bold, in Wisconsin, the public - the general public (i.e. taxpayer), is on their side. In addition, Union membership, according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics, is on the decline, and employees belonging to unions represent only 11.9% of the workforce, or those who, for the most part, work for the Federal and State and local governments in some capacity.

Killing two birds with one stone: Statistics bear out that the decline in U.S. educational standings bears a direct correlations between the growth of unions beginning in Philadelphia in the 1960’s, with test scores, dropout rates, and poor performance of U.S. students spiraling downwards as education unions grew. Logic follows that the success of Scott Walker, specifically against these types of unions, would allow for schools to fire incompetent and hire competent teachers at competitive salaries, sans union interference, putting the U.S. into a true “no child left behind” competitive state. At the same time, he forces those taking advantage of the taxpayers into the awkward position of having to work and receive compensation just like the “rest of us”. As Christie has proven in New Jersey, and now Walker in Wisconsin, one can, in times of financial crisis, reduce union influence and improve public schools (over time), then other like-minded states will follows suite. It is only a matter of time.

Election 2010 Impact - Progressive Democrats Lose Ground – NYC Closes its Wallet to Democrats, Teachers Union Not Trusted in formerly Blue New Jersey

An article from Politico on Independence Day spoke to the fact that Democrats are finding it difficult to raise campaign funds from wealthy Donors in New York City, which is a first. Logic (according to what has been long reported and assumed) is that Republicans rather than Democrats have had strong ties to “big money” on Wall Street; however, the DNC has been going to the Wall Street trough, according to Politico, for decades. In fact, up until this year, certain donors would not even “take a meeting” with a Republican – stunned Democrats find that now, wallets are closing and Republican Candidates have been seen in the Big Apple.

The fact that Wall Street, which drives our nations businesses, in spite of corruption, displays of extravagance and the like, has virtually shut down donations to the DNC. More over logic also dictates that this news coming as a surprise to Democrats is either the product of outright arrogance or plain stupidity, perhaps a combination of both.

The New York money comes from several sources, including Wall Street, Jewish Organizations and the Hamptons – where Politico talks about the loss of the Clinton's fundraising in the Hamptons, as if it would make any difference at this point in our economy. Additionally, with the administration being less than friendly to the State of Israel, those going to the Jewish Organizations with hat in hand are finding the door shut. As the administration and members of Congress have set their hearts on demonizing Wall Street, (rule and regulation aside) in order to campaign against Big Business and Republicans (the usual), they are seeing a severe cut in the amount of the donations given.

It’s the economy that has affected both the haves and the have not’s to the extent that giving to a political party, under who’s watch the economy has continued to degrade is not considered a good investment. Therefore, finding the doors shut to DNC fundraisers, should come as no surprise. The article noted that Obama, however, raised money from individuals rather than larger donors – which is bunk - one of the largest contributors to Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign: Goldman Sachs - you can only bite the hand that feeds you so often.

What of those individual donors? Now, in the same position as Wall Street, and with a change in political ideology which goes towards the poor performance of the administration – those individual donors may be slowing a bit – as they are strapped for cash.
July 15th is the next filing for campaigns and PAC’s with the FEC, what to expect, a slowing in donations across the board, but more specifically the Democrats - due to less cash on hand and a whole lot of hurt feelings and mistrust.

Comparing 2008 to 2010 for the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: Total raised in 2010: $2,856,945, compared to 2010 at $1,839, 722 – not much of a difference? Her campaign contributions come primarily from larger business concerns in California, and she faces a real challenger in Republican John Dennis. Should those who had donated to Dennis primary opponent, Walsh (who matched Pelosi in Fundraising in 2009-2010) turn to support Dennis, (which is more probable); his showing on the 15th should improve.

Of course, it’s not always about how much money a political organization or candidate has, that will determine a win or a loss – A recent poll by Quinnipiac on the governorship of one Chris Christie, New Jersey Republican, produced a startling by-product. The residents of the state of New Jersey no longer trust the Teacher’s Union - and by no narrow margin.

New Jersey voters like their teachers 56 – 26 percent, but by a 50 – 24 percent margin they have a negative opinion of the teachers’ union. Voters with children in public school like their teachers 65 – 23 percent, but dislike the teachers’ union 53 – 22 percent. While 45 percent trust the union more to make the right decisions about teacher contracts, 43 percent trust Christie more.
Teachers’ unions are doing the wrong thing in refusing to freeze wages or make other concessions, voters say 64 – 29 percent. Voters oppose 65 – 31 percent property tax increases to avoid cutting teachers and school programs in their district.
“Voters like their kids’ teachers but they sure don’t like the teachers’ union. Voters with kids in school like their teachers more and like the union even less,” Carroll said.

New Jersey Teachers Unions have spent, as of March, 2010, $6 million dollars on negative advertising aimed at the Governor. The fact that this was done, while the Unions refused to allow a wage freeze for teachers and union members for one year, did not set with those New Jersey Taxpayers. It should not sit well with those New Jersey Teachers, who pay $730 a month in Dues, which should go towards health care and pension – one would think. Instead, the bulk of union dues go towards supporting political causes and politicians directly (See Obama Donors link.)
In fact Christie has called on this same union to fore go charging the dues, in order to put into place the desire wage increases this union wants in this recession.

What is of interest is how well or not the DNC will do in total fundraising on July 15th, and if a nationwide survey on trust of unions were taken, how well they might fare in other parts of the country. One would hazard to guess that the poll taken in New Jersey, due to heavy concentration of Registered Democrats in the state, might have given them a few extra points. Therefore, advertisements run by the Teachers union (and other) might not be doing any initiatives or candidates any favors – it also remains to be seen how many teachers might actually end up buying out of their union, and going solo in order to save face and their jobs at the same time. (Yes, one must pay a fee not to belong to the Teaches union.)

As the nation readies for the 2010 and 2012 election cycle, Democrats will find themselves with less dollars for advertising, and if the unions continue to spend dues on negative advertising in a variety states, those watching may be less inclined to believe the union message. There are two basic lessons in this: one: know how thinly stretched the “masses” are before asking them for your trust, and tax dollars, two: don’t bite the hand that feeds you and most impotently: Progressive Politics don’t work in a Democratic Republic, the people balk, get disgusted and then go to the polls.