Wisconsin, Bargaining Rights and SEIU Tactics

On Saturday, I questioned the wisdom of including "bargaining rights" in the package of reforms in Scott Walker's proposed legislation. Specifically, he has proposed that the right to bargain over benefits and working conditions would be removed from the current legal framework for government unions. Further, he is proposing an end to payroll deductions for union dues as well as instituting right to work, which ends mandatory union participation. Also he is proposing an annual vote of collective bargaining units to maintain certification as a union. The full list of proposals here. I was concerned that the proposed removal of bargaining rights would be seen as anti-democratic by the general public and harm the greater cause of getting union power reduced. This is a tactical not a fundamental concern. I don't think that there is an inherent right of collective bargaining for government workers in the same way that I believe freedom of speech is an inherent right.

The intervening days have brought new information to apply to the problem. First, Rasmussen reports that likely voters favor the governor over the unions by a 48%- to 38% margin in a national poll. (Wish it were a Wisconsin poll.) I was hoping the margin would have been higher, but given the loud and angry protests, this is a great sign that the public isn't ignorant of the underlying issues.

Second, Scott Walker was on the TV over the weekend and made the case that in Wisconsin, the state employees have some of the strongest worker protections of any state. What this means in practice, from my experience in the federal work force, is that it is almost impossible to fire workers except for the most blatant misconduct. Given such protections, where workers cannot lose their jobs, is it fair that they can then hold their employer hostage by striking? It creates a huge imbalance that allows the unions to blackmail the government into accepting binding arbitration where they tend to get their demands met. Explaining these facts could go a long way towards getting voters to approve of such a legal outcome.

Third, Rush Limbaugh today talked about the importance of being on offense, not defense. He brought the following to my attention. According to TPM:

State Senate rules require only a simple majority to pass a non-fiscal law. That means that only 17 Republican votes from the party's 19-vote majority would be needed to end the collective bargaining.

Republicans could strip the collective bargaining provision out of the budget legislation, pass it separately without Democrats present and get on with life. Further, this would remove the reason that the Democrat state senators are on the run, and get the budget passed as they might feel compelled to get back to their jobs. Republicans should take a page from Democrats and pass legislation when they have a majority. As much work as we did to kill Obamacare and rally the country against it, the bill is still on the books. The time to get our legislation passed is when we have the votes.

Ace of Spades has evidence of SEIU's tactics of intimidation (H/T: Temple of Mut). Trying to stop the Pledge of Allegiance? Really? The SEIU has every right to protest, that right is fundamental, unlike collective bargaining. But ever notice how when SEIU is involved, there is a potential for violence, and many times there is actual violence. Every Tea Party rally I have attended has had a police presence, and they act like they have nothing to do, because they don't have anything to do. Tea Party types don't even leave litter at their rallies. Meanwhile, lefty types who define themselves in opposition to the Tea Party movement are calling on their supporters to harass Tea Party coordinators who have nothing to do with so called "infiltration tactics."

I am rethinking my position. Like many conservative positions, there is often a "feel good" slogan used by the left in opposition that turns out to be incoherent when examined. Apparently, the country has decided that the direction of government requires the general public to pay more attention. Thank God.

Protests the World Over

Protests in Iran, Morocco and China, as protests against repression circle the globe.

With protests now planned for China, it seems that no dictatorship is immune to the protests sweeping the world. The Middle East protests in particular show the power of our ideals of democracy. Concept of human rights and democracy are steadily taking hold even in the Arab speaking world. This has surprised me, but I am not the only one. It shows how little we know about the daily life of peoples throughout the world. Ultimately, I believe that democracy is the only answer to the question of peace. As long as whether there will be peace or war is in the power of a single man or ruling oligarchy, the incentives for war remain high. Further, opposition movements can tout their "purity" and use a platform of war, against Israel and the U.S. in this case, to bolster their memberships. Democracy causes governments to count the cost of war. Throughout history, war has been the great ravager of wealth. Most people understand this, which becomes a built in bias in the electoral system against those who would wage war. (I know there are contra-examples, but this is due to the delusion and promise by politicians that war can be fought on the cheap with benefits that will exceed costs, which is seldom true.)

But their is danger as well. A strong undercurrent of Islamic fundamentalism, long suppressed in some of the secular dictatorships could lead to more theocracies like Iran's with attendant threats to what little peace there is in the region. In such an event we would be trading a dictatorship friendly to our interests to one inimical to our interests. This is why those who profess to practice Realpolitik believe that we should prop up regimes like the Sauds' and Mubarak's. However, that is recipe for long term disaster, because no regime lasts forever, and the people eventually associate the U.S. with repression, not liberty. Why is America wildly popular in the former East Bloc nations? Because we consistently called for and pushed for their release from Soviet hegemony. The opposite is true today in Egypt.

However, I am still hopeful, we see that the public can learn from events. A war would be a disaster for Egypt for example and might take the wind out of the sails of antisemitism. The people there are unhappy with their economic condition, and need tourism to get their economy moving. There are powerful forces of self interest that might prevent a take over by an Islamic fundamentalist movement that is hostile to democracy. However, the fundamentalists seem the most willing to use violent means to seize power, reminiscent of the Bolsheviks in 1917. These are indeed dangerous times, war is by no means out of the question, as a result of these events. Our government needs to be prepared.

I Think Not

This morning's Wall Street Journal headline said:

Feeling Blue: Aggressive Airport Screening Here to Stay

I repeat, I think not. This will end one way or another, the only question is how. The American people and even the employees of the TSA are not going to put up with aggressive groping forever. My worry is that it will end in tragedy. Public humiliation does strange things to people and is a sure fire way to get the adrenaline flowing. I am worried. This is another reason why I posted yesterday on a non-violent means to protest these procedures. If people sing in line, it could help them handle the emotional response to the abuse, and make them feel less powerless. More importantly, it well help heap ridicule on our government's over reach. Ultimately, I would like to see this procedure end because our political leaders feel to embarrassed to allow it to continue.

From yesterday's comments, here are some more suggestions for singing in line.

From Temple of Mut: James Cagney singing Yankee Doodle Dandy (embed not available).

W.C. suggests whistling, a la "Bridge over the River Kwai."



And one more I thought of:

Protesting the TSA in Song and Verse

I have been conflicted as to how to protest the abuse of average Americans at the hands of the TSA at our nation's airports, but at the same time, I am a firm believer in the rule of law. Shane rightfully points out that the search procedures may very well be unconstitutional, but absent a court order, that doesn't help your average citizen. I don't want to ask people to suffer $10 grand fines. Dean also points out that the TSA agents are none too happy themselves with the position they are put in. To quote extensively from BWD, quoting TSA employees at TechDirt:

"Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me, said in my presence as I patted passengers down. These comments are painful and demoralizing, one day is bad enough, but I have to come back tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to keep hearing these comments. If something doesn’t change in the next two weeks I don’t know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country."

My fellow Americans, what is to be done? Stay ungovernable my friends, but within the bounds of law and respect for our fellow Americans. Here is my suggestion. Sing. That's right, we need to sing loudly and long while in line. It will disrupt the ambiance of submission, but is itself not unlawful. Maybe we could start with the pledge of allegiance, to remind our fellow citizens, employees of the TSA, of their duties under the constitution. As a federal employee I know I took this oath.


We could then go with patriotic and traditional songs while while waiting in line. Imagine, the power of showing our government that we are not submitting willingly. There is no law against this action of singing and reciting, but it would show our solidarity against this intrusion into our privates and private lives.

I offer some YouTube clips of suggested material for traveler's consideration to say/sing while waiting for their share of abuse at the hands of our government. (Just a reminder: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. . .")




We might want to raise our voices when we say "liberty and justice for all."




And to get our left of center friends on board, because at the end of the day, they love freedom too, here is a little reminder that the President promised something different than whole body groping at his inaugural.



Since we are marching in a long line:



Because we need His help now more than ever, because our greatest adversary has become our own government:



Maybe a stretch, but the 23rd Psalm comes to mind, considering the valley of the shadow of death, but is probably too religious.

I hope others consider this a worthy idea. Don't know if I personally will have the opportunity to put this into practice, but I want to hear your thoughts on improving this form of protest.

Tea Partying - California Style

Potentially light blogging tonight, as the B-Daddy household struggles to meet the tax deadline. Don't want to wait until tomorrow, because I might miss out on some of this:

California Tax Day Tea Party from Lipstick Underground on Vimeo.

From the website:

This video represents a short history of how we got to this place, how much we've accomplished, and how we have nothing but momentum at our backs heading into the 2010 election.

Thanks, Sarah, for the work on this.

Anti-Capitalist Protesters at G20 Summit?

The headline from the Daily Mail reads "Protesters storm RBS office as thousands of anti-capitalists ransack the City in G20 riot." My question: What makes them so sure? And I mean both the protesters and The Mail. I defy you to show me a capitalist at the G20 summit. So what are these a**hats protesting?

On the subject of who is the capitalist, see the G20 web site for membership and let me know if you find a capitalist country listed.

I'd much prefer to hang with protesters with a sense of humor. At least those guys know they are anti-socialist. Which begs the question, if anti-socialist and anti-capitalist protesters have the same object of their ire, who is right?