In a mostly informative "news analysis" ("Ohio's Anti-Union Law Is Tougher Than Wisconsin's," New York Times, 4/1/11) comparing new anti-union laws that restrict collective bargaining rights in Ohio and Wisconsin, New York Times labor and workplace correspondent Steven Greenhouse seems at one point to adopt the framing and language of anti-labor politicians and pundits:

Moreover, at a time of huge budget deficits and of Republican dominance in many states, including states like Ohio and Wisconsin where unions once had swaggering power, the pendulum has swung toward the taxpayer instead of the government workers paid by the taxpayer.

Pitting "swaggering" unionized public workers against "taxpayers"--who are, in fact, mostly other workers--may be a tried-and-true strategy of anti-labor forces, but it doesn't accurately reflect the way the public see the issues. As the Times' own polling expert points out, Americans seem to be siding with public workers on the the issue of collective bargaining rights. 

Considering the fact that this isn't the only time the paper has pushed a false divide between government workers and nearly everybody else, perhaps Greenhouse would have more accurately portrayed the divisions had he written, "The pendulum has swung toward anti-labor activists and journalists, and away from public workers and the majority of the public who support them."

The Charlie Rose show--which airs mostly on public television stations--has mostly skipped the protests in Wisconsin, one of the biggest labor stories of the past decade. This is not a total surprise--Rose seems to identify with The Bosses more than with the workers--so it was interesting to see how he finally approached the subject on his March 2 show.

The first guest was Time's  Joe Klein. He seems to identify with public sector workers, he knows they're not getting rich, but he doesn't like their unions: "Public employees' unions are a pretty questionable proposition," as he put it. The solution in Wisconsin is "to bring those pension plans and healthcare more in line with the rest of the public."

The next guest: far right Fox News host Mike Huckabee. He makes some jokes about raising the retirement age, then zeroes in on the pension problem:

So what I think the governor in Wisconsin is doing is what he has to do.  A teacher in Wisconsin puts in $1 for the retirement fund.  The fund puts in $57.  I don't know too much people who have a retirement plan.

That would be a remarkably lopsided pension plan. Where does that number come from? There seems to be little trace of it in the debate over Wisconsin. Some commenters at the right-wing Free Republic message board caught Huckabee's appearance and were excited to have a new anti-teacher talking point--only no one could seem to scare up data to support his claim.

General information about contribution rates for Wisconsin teachers can be found here--and you see nothing at all that would resemble Huckabee's formulation. And the Wisconsin pension system is relatively healthy, for the record--making this an odd focus of concern to begin with.

More importantly--what did Charlie Rose do when a guest made such a remarkable claim? He backed him up:

There is it seems to me a huge anger over the fact that people in the private sector see people in the public sector being able to retire with extraordinary benefits because they opt out at age 65.

People are outraged by public employees retiring at 65 with cushy benefits? This is not at all supported by recent polling data. You know what would help clarify things? Rose could consider an on-air clarification or correction. (Huckabee's been doing a lot of "misspeaking" as of late.)  Or he could challenge guests when they make such bizarre claims.

Or--here's an idea!--when the biggest labor story in some time is dominating the news, how about having some labor guests on the show?

You had to assume that there would be folks in the media who wouldn't like the recent CBS/New York Times poll that found strong public support for public workers. Sixty percent of those polled oppose stripping public workers of collective bargaining rights; 56 percent opposed cutting pay or benefits of those workers in the name of deficit reduction.

Fox's Bill O'Reilly has a solution to this problem: Union households shouldn't be polled. As he explained last night (3/1/11)

And the New York Times headline today reads "Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector." But the poll is misleading because 20 percent of the responds say they are from union households. If you subtract them, those who favor cutting benefits win the poll. Wow, New York Times.

In case it wasn't clear, by "subtract them" he means exactly that--they shouldn't count in polls of the American public:

O'REILLY: You have a situation where you have 20 percent of the people polled being in the union families and you're telling me you can't throw that out? That that's a legitimate --

COLMES: You're saying -- yes, I'm saying that you are conflating numbers, 8 percent of people in the polls say are union members, 20 percent say they are in union families.

O'REILLY: Yes, families.

COLMES: You automatically--but you don't automatically take that 20 percent and move into it the other column.

O'REILLY: I'm not moving it anywhere. I'm just taking it out of the mix.

Following this "logic," the elderly shouldn't be polled on Social Security, blacks shouldn't be polled on civil rights legislation and Democrats shouldn't be polled on Barack Obama's job performance.

Today the New York Times reports its new poll (3/1/11):

As labor battles erupt in state capitals around the nation, a majority of Americans say they oppose efforts to weaken the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions and are also against cutting the pay or benefits of public workers to reduce state budget deficits, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

 That's big enough news, and once again cuts against the People-Don't-Support-These-Overpaid-Union-Workers trope. 

 But there's more. When the poll asked about fixing the deficit, people had a message rarely heard in the media:  

Asked how they would choose to reduce their state's deficits, those polled preferred tax increases over benefit cuts for state workers by nearly two to one. Given a list of options to reduce the deficit, 40 percent said they would increase taxes, 22 percent chose decreasing the benefits of public employees, 20 percent said they would cut financing for roads and 3 percent said they would cut financing for education.

 Imagine if the corporate media conversation about deficits were driven more by what the public thinks we should do. Raising revenue is hardly even part of the discussion. 

And a bonus finding--which group of people is most supportive of cutting workers' pay? The Times explains:

Although cutting the pay or benefits of public workers was opposed by people in all income groups, it had the most support from people earning over $100,000 a year. In that income group, 45 percent said they favored cutting pay or benefits, while 49 percent opposed it.

The cut-their-pay pundits don't reflect public opinions, but they do a decent job of representing their class.

As we noted here, there weren't many labor voices booked on the Sunday morning chat shows. One, actually--Richard Trumka from the AFL-CIO.

ABC's This Week featured four governors (two Democrats, two Republicans) talking about their fiscal problems. CBS's Face the Nation had a soft interview with New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie. Host Bob Schieffer asked him one question that began, "You have a reputation as a straight talker, I think...." Schieffer went on to play a clip of Christie bravely calling for Social Security cuts. Instead of questioning Christie's totally inaccurate premise--that you "have to raise the retirement age"--Schieffer asked him, "Should other people be saying that?"

Over at NBC, Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker could at least be challenged by another guest  on the same show. They weren't on at the same time, but NBC viewers could hear Trumka say this:

Well, first of all, this isn't about the budget crisis. Let's look at how this--his arguments migrated.  First he said it was--the budget crisis was caused because workers were paid too much in Wisconsin.  We now have studies that show they're not overpaid, they're underpaid.  In fact, people with a degree in Wisconsin get 25 percent less than their private sector things. 

Then he said it was about the pension.  Now we find out that his pension plan, unlike a lot in the country, is almost fully funded.  The assets match the liabilities. 

And then the employees said, or the members out there said, his workers said, "We'll accept your cuts." And he said: "No.  We won't accept your accepting our cuts." And the most outrageous thing that he did, and he talked about this, was he's now saying to them, "You either have to accept a loss of your rights or I'm going to lay you off." Now, no person should have to face the right of their loss of their job or the loss of their rights.  I know Governor Barbour would never say to his employees, his people down there, "You either have to give up your rights or you have to give up your job."

So there isn't much of a pension crisis in Wisconsin. State workers  aren't overpaid. And those same workers have agreed to many of the concessions Walker is demanding. If this were part of every discussion about Wisconsin, we'd be having a far more sensible discussion.

NBC host David Gregory followed with a popular right-wing argument about public workers' unions--that their political campaign contributions mean that elected officials owe them favors:

You raise a lot of money from public employees.  That goes, goes to finance campaigns to try to get somebody in office that you can do business with.  And ultimately you're supporting someone, in some cases, that you're ultimately negotiating with.  They also know that political employees, rather, public employees are politically active because they're organized by the unions.  And so they make concessions on things like pensions, on healthcare, knowing that the promises don't come due to well down the road.  Isn't this the cycle that we've gotten into that public unions have to take some responsibility for?

In other words, aren't politicians doing favors for you because you help them get elected? How often have CEOs and corporate trade associations--who have far more money than labor to give to politicians--been asked that kind of question?

On his Fox News show Friday, self-described "union guy" Bill O'Reilly was touting the results of a new poll finding that Wisconsinites are backing Gov. Scott Walker:

According to a new poll by WisconsinReporter.com, a nonpartisan group, 71 percent of Wisconsinites believe that Gov. Scott Walker's union cutbacks are fair. 71 percent. And 69 percent of Wisconsin residents believe state workers have better benefits than private sector employees.

That finding would seem to  at odds with other polls of Wisconsin residents. But who is this "nonpartisan" group, anyway? If you go to the  WisconsinReporter.com website, the "About" page  is blank. TPMuckracker fills in the details:

The mysterious poll of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's budget proposal making the rounds today was commissioned by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a conservative not-for-profit based in North Dakota and Virginia that was founded by a former Republican operative.

The Franklin Center also has ties to the some of the groups that organized a pro-Walker rally last weekend in Madison, including the Tea Party training group American Majority.

So that's "nonpartisan" in the same sense that O'Reilly is "independent."

As best I can tell, the labor battle in Wisconsin is a big story--and maybe the biggest labor story in years. But as Amanda Terkel reported at the Huffington Post, that doesn't mean you're going to see union advocates on the Sunday chat shows. Terkel noted:

A union official told the Huffington Post that when none of the Sunday shows' producers reached out to them to book a labor representative this week, several unions started to pitch the shows with affected workers and local and national leaders who they felt could discuss the protests. The official said the response from the shows was essentially "thanks, but no thanks."

Terkel's original post has been updated to reflect the fact that NBC's Meet the Press has announced that it will add Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO to its roundtable. The show will include an array of Republicans and conservatives: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, John McCain (because how could you have a Sunday show without him?), Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.*). Liberal MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell will also be on hand.

Shutting out labor is nothing new. A FAIR survey in 1995-96 found:

John Sweeney and Thomas Donahue, candidates for the presidency of the AFL-CIO, were the only guests who were labor leaders. Instead of worker representatives, the shows invited the CEO of United Airlines, the CEO of Continental Airlines, a Goldman Sachs analyst, retired basketball stars and political satirists.

Last week on ABC's This Week the roundtable segment was titled (on the show's website) "Roundtable: Unions vs. Tea Party." They did manage to find a Tea Party congressman (Steve Southerland), along with right-wing regular George Will and right-leaning reporter Jonathan Karl. On the other side? Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.

(Corrected: Emanuel is a Democrat)

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.

I read this in the New York Times a few days ago (2/19/11):

The images from Wisconsin--with its protests, shutdown of some public services and missing Democratic senators, who fled the state to block a vote--evoked the Middle East more than the Midwest.

There's a labor movement in this country? And in the Midwest, even!?

On Monday (2/21/11), ABC World News wanted to set the record straight on Wisconsin's budget problems. As host George Stephanopolous put it, the debate is over

whether pensions and other benefits for public workers are to blame for the crippling budget shortfalls in Wisconsin and other states. Tonight Barbara Pinto has a reality check.

What a relief-- this is something that surely screams out for clarification.

The report starts with a quote from Republican Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. ABC's Pinto weighed in on his side:

Part of that problem, pension plans for America's public workers that are under funded by at least a trillion dollars. Finance professor Joshua Rauh thinks the debt could be at least three times as much.

So the problem is a (nationwide) trillion dollar deficit, or maybe it's three trillion. What's the other side of this discussion? ABC doesn't seem to think there is one. They speak to a "state worker set to retire in December." Said worker is asked to respond to the Republican complaint that "state workers like you are bankrupting them."

Pinto mentions that ten years ago most states were in fine shape, but then by 2008 things changed considerably. Governor Walker "wants to control those costs, fixing the budget by breaking the unions' power to negotiate over benefits."

A reality check could have pointed out, as the New York Times did (2/19/11), that Wisconsin's "pension fund is considered one of the healthiest in the nation, and it is not suffering from the huge shortfalls that other states are facing."

So do those trillion dollar figures make any sense? And if everything was fine until 2008, maybe something happened around that time that would explain the current crisis?

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy & Research provides some helpful context-- the kind of information you would appreciate in a news report purporting to be a "reality check."

Baker writes:

There have been numerous media accounts in recent months warning of large shortfalls in public pension funds. Conventional estimates have placed the shortfall at around $1 trillion, while some analyses have put the shortfall as high as $3.2 trillion using a discount rate that implies pension funds will only earn the risk-free rate of return (Novy-Marx and Rauh, 2009). While there are important measurement issues in determining the size of the shortfall, it is also important that the number be placed in some context. Most people, including those involved in policy debates, will not have a good basis for assessing the meaning of a shortfall measured in the trillions of dollars that must be filled over an indefinite period in the future. The relevant context is the size of the projected shortfalls relative to the size of the state economies.

Before going through this exercise, it is worth noting that the size of the shortfall in many of these funds has likely already been reduced as a result of the fact that the stock market has continued to recover from its downturn in 2008 and 2009. On July 1, 2010, the S&P 500 was already more than 11 percent higher than its July 1, 2009 level (from 987 on July 1, 2009 to 1101 on July 1, 2010). Most funds use the stock market’s closing value at the end of the fiscal year as the basis for determining the valuation of their assets. Of course they also use an average, so the valuation would not simply reflect the market value at the end of the fiscal year. However, with the market having already risen substantially from its low (the S&P 500 had risen another 19 percent to 1293 by January 10, 2011), it is likely that pension valuations based on current and future market levels will show smaller shortfalls. In other words, a substantial portion of the shortfalls that were reported based on 2009 valuations have likely already been eliminated by the rise in the market.