Summary: Why Wisconsin's "budget repair" bill is really about giving the GOP unlimited power.
By now, everyone is aware of what’s happening here in Wisconsin.
Our newly elected governor, Republican Scott Walker, has introduced a “budget repair bill” that would strip public-sector workers of their collective bargaining rights.
Although there are budget-balancing measures in the bill, it goes far beyond that.
What the bill would do to public-sector labor organizations:
• Prevent collective bargaining over salaries and wages beyond cost-of-living adjustments
• Ban collective bargaining over pensions and health care benefits as well as working conditions
• Stop unions from receiving dues through paycheck deductions
• Require the unions to hold annual elections among their members for the recertification of the union.
When you put all these things together, it is obvious that many public employees will ask the same question: why keep the union?
Make no mistake, if this bill passes in the form Walker is demanding, it will dissolve public employee unions.
Walker claims the bill is to prevent a $137 million shortfall in the state’s budget, and to close the gap public employees needed to put approximately 6% of their income toward their pensions and 12% of their income toward their health care plans.
The unions conceded on those grounds long ago.
So state Democrats issued a proposal that would balance the budget -- and give Walker virtually everything he wants -- while leaving collective bargaining untouched.
Walker: “not good enough.”
Then, state Republicans offered another proposal. It would give Walker virtually everything he wants, with a two-year moratorium on collective bargaining.
Walker: “still not good enough.”
So why does Walker insist on busting unions?
At this point, it is clear that the controversial bill has nothing to do with balancing the budget. It doesn’t even have to do with destroying unions. It has to do with Democrats.
It’s often said that the Democratic Party is a “big tent” party. Well, if the Democrats are a big tent, the unions are the poles that hold it up.
Back when I worked on a congressional campaign in northeast Wisconsin, and my organization needed to quickly round up volunteers, I always told my interns to contact three groups of people:
1) Previous volunteers
2) Leaders in the local county Democratic Party.
3) The United Steelworkers
Unions are critical to the Democrats. No one else in the tent offers the same structural support. Environmental groups, LGBT groups, minority groups, and even women’s advocacy groups tend to be little more than social clubs that offer their votes and -- occasionally -- a little money.
Unions, on the other hand, are well financed and well organized for the mass support efforts needed to win elections. And with the exception of SEIU and a few others, public-sector unions like AFSCME and the teachers are the only ones left with any real strength.
Without organized labor, Democrats will lose easy votes, a ready-to-assembly pool of volunteers, and most importantly, a lot of massive PAC checks.
(Want further proof? The three public employee unions who endorsed Walker and who tend to be more conservative -- the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, and the Wisconsin Troopers’ Association -- were all exempt from his proposal.)
Simply put, without organized labor, Democrats will be neutered.
To be fair, the Republicans have a lot of similar resources (like the Tea Parties) rooted in business groups (Koch Industries being the most notorious these days). But business groups are at no risk of being broken up, especially in the age of Citizens United.
As a political operative for Democratic candidates, I have real concerns about staying in Wisconsin if this bill passes. If labor groups don’t survive, how will my party survive? If my party doesn’t survive, how will I survive?
Make no mistake; this bill is about destroying the opposition -- not balancing the budget.
The Number One piece of progressive legislation that Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) has refused to support since switching parties is the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill - which would make it easier for workers to organize for collective bargaining - has been mentioned several times by Specter since he became a Democrat.
Before the party-switch, he told Republican constituents "the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter, is vital to stopping…passage of card check".
In his campaign statement following the switch, he told voters
"My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change."
Of course, during the 110th Congress, Specter supported EFCA as a co-sponsor and said he was "delighted" to let it get past the cloture vote. Since then he changed his stance - probably to satisfy Republican donors for his upcoming battle with former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) - and kept his position consistent through the party-switch so as not to appear to be a flip-flopper. But this campaign pragmatism has put him in a bit of a predicament.
As we mentioned before, the most significant reason that Specter changed parties was to avoid a Republican Primary with Toomey. But without supporting EFCA, Specter will be at a serious disadvantage in a possible Democratic Primary.
State Rep. Bill Kortz (D-Dravosburg) and Joseph Torsella (a former aide to Gov. Ed Rendell) are already running against Specter in the Primary, and many expect Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) to jump in as well.
The unions may be inclined to support any of these challengers so long as Specter opposes EFCA - a major problem for him in a Democratic Primary. As some of the most efficient progressive organizing associations, labor unions are particularly important for Democrats to win the support of going into an election.
And in Pennsylvania they’re especially important. With more than 800,000 union members statewide - and the home to the very politically active United Steelworkers - the Keystone State will be a tough place for any Democrat that opposes such a key labor law while going into a Primary.
So far the unions have made the importance of this bill clear. Last month, more than 300 union members marched in Pittsburg in an effort to reverse Specter’s position.
Yet Specter claims his newfound concerns with EFCA are not entirely about an anti-labor principle. Earlier this month he said “I’m opposed to giving up the secret ballot or mandatory arbitration as they are set forth in the bill, but I do believe that labor law reform is past overdue”. So a compromise to the Card Check Clause may be enough to bring him on board.
Sen. Diane Feinstein has such a compromise.
From the National Journal:
[Diane Feinstein's] proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union.
It may not be what the unions had in mind, but many union organizers say the proposal sounds alright.
Specter, meanwhile, has suggested the Arbitration Clause could be amended to make "last best offer" arbitration (or Baseball Arbitration) into law. And Bill Samuel of the AFL-CIO says "we're open to that."
As far as passing the legislation goes, Specter may not be the only one to change positions with the compromise. It could satisfy the concerns of other moderate senators such as Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Udall (D-CO), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
Ultimately, the unions may be disappointed with the concessions, but pleased that such reform would actually pass.
Specter will have his own reasons to support such a compromise bill. His future may depend on it.
