Public sector employees need union protection from the fools and frauds who would sacrifice their careers for political gain. They need protection from people like Wisconsin's Scott Walker.

::::::::

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker doesn't realize it, but the man himself is the reason public sector unions are necessary. 

That's right, Scott: public employees need unions to defend themselves against people like you: the fools and frauds, the cockalorums and demagogues, who would sacrifice those employees' careers and livelihoods for their own political gain. 

The problem is not the unions, Scott.   The problem is you. 

I say that as one who, for a long time, was lukewarm about the need for public sector unions.   Sure, I thought, I can see the need for unions at construction sites and other dangerous, high-risk jobs.   I worked in a steel mill; of course I would see the value of the union in a workplace like that. 

But unions for nurses, teachers, social workers?   Meh, not so much, I thought. 

Well, I take it all back. 

People like nurses, teachers, and social workers do work in dangerous, high-risk professions, I now realize.   The danger to them, Scott, is you.   Just as we need those public servants, they need unions to protect themselves from occupational dangers like you. 

Your problems run on two levels, Scott.   On the fiscal level, the unions have already given you more than you deserve.   You wanted concessions and givebacks; increased employee contributions to the health care and pension programs.   You got them. 

The unions should have held their ground.   The reason is that a labor agreement, like a mortgage or a purchase agreement, is a contract.   Every contract has a contract price and the parties to the contract know, or should know, what it that price is. 

You can't unilaterally decide after you enter into a contract that the price is too high. People who do that are, at best, foolish.   At worst, they are guilty of negotiating in bad faith. 

That forces the obvious question, Scott: which are you, a fool or a fraud? 

Unfortunately, the unions did not press that question.   They should have.   But instead they gave you what you asked for.   You said the state was broke so the unions stepped up. 

But you knew the state was not broke.   It was never broke.   The state was not broke for the simplest of reasons: it still has the power to tax.

But people can't afford higher taxes, you say.   Correction: people don't want to pay higher taxes.   And you don't want to tax them because it would damage your political career.   Both are understandable; I don't want to pay higher taxes any more than politicians want to raise them.   But your desire to raise taxes or my desire to pay them is not the issue.

Ensuring that your state meets its lawful obligations is the issue.   And on that point, it seems you would rather see your Wisconsin welsh on its commitments than step up to meet them.

Besides, if Wisconsin were broke, why on earth would you sign a tax cut?   Is that any way to run a business?   If any CEO anywhere strode into the Board Room and announced, "I have the solution to our fiscal problems: we're going to slash revenues!" he would be thrown out on his golden-parachuted behind.

You say you want to run the state like a business?   That's how a business runs.

I wonder: how does your demand for givebacks from unions make you any different from the deadbeat who would rather live on welfare checks and food stamps than get a respectable job and go to work every day?   The answer is, it doesn't.   You want to get something for nothing and you want somebody else to pay for it.

But you inherited these contracts, you say.   They were not your doing.   That doesn't matter.   An organization's commitments are not voided just because a new management team is installed.

Suppose you tried to pull this same stunt with a bank: "Sure, I took over the other guy's mortgage but now that I'm in the house, I have decided it costs too much.   So I'm going to pay you less.   And if you don't like it, I won't pay anything at all!"

How do you think that would be received?   Would the bank be as understanding as the unions have been?   I doubt it.

You got what you said you wanted from the unions.   That should satisfy you.   But J. P. Morgan had it right: "A man has two reasons for what he does: the one that sounds good and the real one."

"The state is broke" is the reason that sounds good.   But that's not the real reason, is it?

No, you made clear the real reason for your actions in your debut performance as David Koch's lickspittle -- the now-famous prank phone call.   The real reason you will not accept union concessions is that you really want to destroy the unions' ability to bargain collectively.

Sure, you'll allow them to collectively bargain for raises up to the inflation rate.   But nothing more.   What kind of a collective bargaining charade is that?   In that case, there's no negotiating to do: just give people a COLA and be done with it.

But think about what that would mean for the education system, Scott.   Forty years ago, I signed my first teaching contract for $6,000.   Had I stayed in teaching and gotten only inflation-level pay raises, I would now be making $32,800.

Do you think any teachers with 40 years' experience would work today for $32,800 a year?   No, they would not.

So what you will be left with is an education system populated by eager young college graduates and older people who can't get jobs doing anything else.

In the most recent OECD/PISA rankings of educational attainment in 31 nations, the United States ranked 14th in scientific literacy, 15th in reading literacy, and 19th in mathematical literacy.   And your plan is to pay the best teachers $32,800 a year?

And what's with your plan to sell Wisconsin power plants without soliciting bids?   That wouldn't have anything to do with Koch Industries, would it?   Or your plan to exempt police and firefighters' unions from the restrictions you would apply to all other public sector unions?   Would that exemption have anything to do with their support for you in the last election?

I thought prostitution was illegal in Wisconsin, Scott, but it seems to be alive and well in Wisconsin's governor's mansion.

Less than three months into your tenure, you have gotten yourself into a fix where you now have no certain victory and no easy retreat.   You can't walk away from the problem you have created; that would seem like an admission of defeat.   And it's too late to compromise.   Your political base and your financial backers would never stand for it.   Your only option -- and you've already taken it -- it to double down and hope that circumstances beyond your control will render your foolish and politically craven "budget repair bill" moot.

Earlier I asked, "Scott, which are you, a fool or a fraud?'   At this point in your brief tenure, the answer appears to be, "Both."

And public sector employees need unions to protect them from both.

Authors Website: www.opednews.com

Authors Bio:
Rick Wise is an industrial psychologist and retired management consultant. For 15 years, he was managing director of ValueNet International, Inc.

Before starting ValueNet, Rick was director, corporate training and, later, director, corporate strategy for Travelers Corp., an international insurance and financial services firm. He lost six friends in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Rick was a Vietnam-era Navy Hospital Corpsman.

Rick holds PhD and M.Ed. degrees from Penn State. His BS is from West Chester University. He completed post-doctoral work at Rensselaer, Northwestern, Colorado, and Harvard. A native of Pennsylvania, Rick now lives in New England.