As Josh Marshall noted recently, one of the assumptions in the media discussion about Wisconsin is that Republican politicians are playing on public outrage over the perks given to public workers. That assumption took a hit after a new Gallup Poll, reported on the front page of USA Today, found this:
Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61 percent would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33 percent who would favor such a law.
But another interesting finding from the Gallup Poll hasn’t received much attention. They asked this:
As you may know, many U.S. state governments are facing large budget deficits this year. Please say whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose each of the following ways state officials could reduce their budget deficits. How about reducing pay or benefits the state provides for government workers?
One might assume that the public would support government workers taking a pay/benefit cut. But the findings are surprising: 44 percent favor or strongly favor such reductions; 53 percent oppose/strongly oppose.
Back to Marshall’s point–this finding makes the prevailing media assumptions appear even weaker. On Sunday in the Washington Post, Dan Balz wrote this:
Given the precarious condition of state budgets, there is some public support for reducing pension and health benefits for public employees. Favorability ratings for unions are at a historical low, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. And the public is divided over whether it supports unions or state governments in such disputes, though tipping slightly to the unions.
In fact, if the Gallup Poll is any indication, the public hasn’t decided to save money by cutting public workers’ pay.
Doug Latimer
Well, the majority of the public may oppose givebacks, but it appears union “leadership” doesn’t.
The AFL-CIO took out a full page ad in the Wisconsin State Journal today highlighting their capitulation to Walker’s demand for pension and healthcare concessions.
I’m assuming the idea is to counter this image of “selfish public workers” – one that it appears the majority of folks don’t hold.
Regardless, isn’t this tantamount to pleading with an armed robber to take your money, just please don’t shoot you?
How is this “negotiating”?
Shouldn’t the principle be “From each, according to their income”? Let corps and the wealthy pay their fair share. Even if you accept that there is a “budget crisis”, that would solve it, wouldn’t it?
State that you’re willing to do your part, if necessary, but that the “sacrifices” have to be shared proportionately.
I believe most persons – and rank and file union members – would find that eminently reasonable, don’t you?
Chris
“Favorability ratings for unions are at a historical low”
So are the ratings for Congress, yet I haven’t heard of any legislation being pushed to abolish representative government–and there’s no doubt that they are a drain on our budgets.
It’s phrases like the one I quoted that misrepresent the entire debate and frame it through the “American Idol” lens of thinking. If something doesn’t pass the popularity test (read: popular with a majority of GOP voters, the “true” Americans), then it has to go.
Good article.
Glenn Fritz
Leadership Retreatership.
Employee Free Choice Act, Card Check “hope” goes bad on the shelf.
The Democratic Party and union leadership message is, “Start the revolution without us. We’ll come on board later. Maybe.”
Chicago “tough guy” shows his true colors. Obama is a wimp.
Donr
How would it go over if a state legislator decided that the business union (Chamber of Commerce) were NOT to be able to politically lobby, or give funds to candidates, or sell their memberships to business (ie: campaign for memberships in the business world (market place)?
If we are to crush the unions shouldn’t we be talking about ALL UNIONS? Like the Medical Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the CCCE?
Eldon Rollins
We need to keep one thing in mind – there wouldn’t have ever been a budget crisis if Large corporations and the ultra-rich had been paying their share during the Bush years, or before, or since.
Their lifestyles are being financed on the backs of the working poor, whose ranks have expanded almost solely because of the reduction in union memberships since the 50’s and 60’s – and further enhancing their lifestyles at the expense of people who fix roads, or count wildlife, or sit at a desk all day trying to field questions, isn’t going to help any of the rest of us. Its just going to help the very rich, huge corporations, investment bankers, and hedge fund managers – all the people whose greed
resulted in the phony “financial collapse” that caused the phony “budget crisis” thats being used to destroy all social programs with a conscience. The ones Social Darwinists despise so much. So I’m inclined to think the financial collapse was planned, and even if it wasn’t, preventing the recovery of the economy most certainly is planned.
Donr
Not to mention the NHL, and the NFL, the media conglomerates, like Disney, and GEneral Electric. One could consider them a union to restrict competition, this much vaunted “free market”. We could go on, but I am sure you all get the idea.
Why is it only one kind of unity or cooperative is to be reviled; but ANY business organization gets a free ride and subsidy, and politicos actually running around the globe to promote it?
OK, so your idiology (religion – capitalism) says it is “good”. “Greed is Good!”
Mine says cooperation is good.
Why does government frown on my belief, that unity and cooperation are bad? Is it so hard to see the benefits of labor unity? And the drawbacks of the other?…after the last year or two?
michael e
People your missing the point.It does not matter what the public or the government thinks about unions.It does not matter that you believe unions are in the position they are in because of fat cats on the right(they are not).The blame game is over.Old. Useless. Nothing matters in all this except one sad point….we are broke.Nothing more can be extended to unions in the way of taxpayer assistance.So what ever bargain is reached -collective or otherwise….we must accept that sad fact.That is the future.
Helen Bedd
The perpetually confused Mikey e writes: “we are broke.”
Uh, America is far from “broke”. It is the largest economy in the world. After collapsing as a result of the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks — and Republican economic policies in late 2008 — the economy has, in fact, grown for six consecutive quarters. The stock market has almost doubled since the crash — regaining most of its value. Corporate profits are soaring. And American corporations are now sitting on close to two trillion dollars in cash.
We still have the same highly-skilled, productive labor force and the same stock of plants and equipment that we did before the financial meltdown — the same ability to create the goods and services that are the real measures of economic wealth.
Plus, Britain and Japan ramped up their purchases of U.S. government debt in December. That suggests overseas governments and private investors are still willing to buy it. Hard to be broke when other people are buying what you’re selling.
The $64 question: If America is broke than why did the GOP recently demand that our government continue to give massive tax breaks for the wealthy for the next two years?
[Note: comment mostly stolen from Robert Creamer]
michael e
Helen we are not just broke.We are broke and owe trillions.We are playing with monopoly money.The rich ,the poor,and the in betweens.The stock market is being fueled by speculation.The banks were bailed out once and now are back to toxic moves.It is all an illusion to keep the cogs rolling.People are not buying anything we are selling.They are buying the scraps of what is left.I remember Donald Trump was walking with Marla Maples and said(pointing to a bag man)that man is worth more than me.At the time he was in the hole 150 mil.Well he recreated his wealth.We are in a time when one that may not be possible.And two ,if it was up to you- YOU would be against it.Rock and a hard place.
TimN
Helen, if a man robs a bank, shoots a few customers, and eventually gets caught, did you know, that in our new, enlightened times, he’s blameless? In fact, if an attorney general or some other upstart actually tries to send him to prison, our blameless criminal can loudly proclaim that it’s simply the “blame game” going on, and for God’s sake, whatever happened to our great god-given rights to make a buck? Don’t be so toxic, Helen; learn to embrace squalor, both in thought and in deed, and always, always , look the other way when your people break the law. We’re broke, after all, so all transgressions that made us broke must be over-looked. That’s the best way to run a country, and to have a democracy.
Carol Crown
I’m with you again, Tim. Sometimes you just have to laugh loud in the face of fools. Michael loves his robber barons and nothing will change that.
michael e
Carol i never met a robber baron.Mr gates is very good about giving his money away.I suppose he is the closest we have to a robber baron.Wish we had a million more like him.Hell ten million.Tim believes there should be no people able to even be philanthropists.He believes all philanthropy begins, and ends with government.(A government run by people like Obama and Biden who have never given anything to charity though they are rich men.)So don’t apply things to me like “michael loves his robber barons”….Say instead- Michael sees that the empowered Fed is the largest Robber baron, and he does not mean to feed it.As far as our democracy allowing people to go blameless.Did you see the open ended “loan fanny and freddy got?Yeah Tim you have a point.
michael e
Somebody here answer a simple question…….Why has Obama and Biden been so “uncharitable”in their lives?There is this image going about that they CARE.This image.Yet they have been misers.Do as I say- not as I do?Why have their charitable contributions been next to nothing?Why does Obama allow his immediate family to live in poverty?Frauds and hypocrates
Dennis k
Not surprising seeing as 68% are on the government payroll in one way or another.
Raymond
Just for what it’s worth:
from the Office of Management and the Budget in the White House:
Tax Year Individual tax Corporate Tax
1943 6505 9557
1948 19319 9678
1968 68726 29665
1988 401108 94508
2008 1145747 301346
m. keating
Are state and local workers the new fat cats? Is public sector pay out of line? http://tinyurl.com/5vhp4vy