Public Sector Worker Rights

21Mar/110

Public Sector Worker Rights

I've been on about this, including my revisiting the issue of public sector workers, who can't be fired, demoted, or caused to pay for a small portion of their health and pensions, because if they resort to suicide or crime it will be our fault. Via Vanderleun, UW-Madison Philosophy Prof Lester Hunt:

Government workers in Greece, faced with austerity measures, rioted and firebombed a bank, burning to death three human beings trapped inside. In New Jersey the Governor responded to a severe recession by denying government school teachers their expected annual raise (a raise, during a recession) and the reaction from public sector unions was screaming, white-faced rage. Here in Wisconsin, the Governor is trying to limit the collective bargaining rights of state workers -- a measure that would leave them with roughly the same rights that federal workers have -- and the reactions from the unions was three weeks of demonstrations, illegal obstruction of the legislative process, and an unprecedented flood of death threats and obscene phone calls.

Clearly, these people sincerely believe that they have rights that people in the private sector do not have. Why?

*******

Haven't we learned in the last year or so, that government workers feel more entitled than others? After all, starting about 3 or 4 years ago, families in the private sector started to behave as if family members would be laid off or cut back. And they were, and they did the best with it that they could. When private sector workers lose economic ground they do not scream, demonstrate, or riot.

Precisely.

Obama was running neck-and-neck with, or even a nose behind McCain when the markets collapsed. Stupidly, it put him over the top, even though he was clearly the taxiest and spendiest of tax and spend liberals. The MFM presented him as a moderate, and a lot of people swallowed that hogwash because they wanted so to believe in hope and change. As Enoch pointed out earlier today, O also stated that he wouldn't be the kind of interventionist warmonger that Boooooosh! was. Because separation of powers, not running roughshod over the Constitution, Cowboy Diplomacy, restore America's standing in the world.

Aaron Worthing:

And then there was this, from the same transcript:

Muammar Qadhafi clearly lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.

Um, wait a minute, Mr. President… Exactly when did Gaddafi have legitimacy? A dictator is illegitimate every day of his rule.

Farrakhan wonders who Obama thinks he is, deposing an Arab tyrant whom Farrakhan admires, because he's all about the civil rights, obviously. Moammar and son, meanwhile, are shocked that Obama would try to overthrow a regime that's done so much for its people, and think (since Obama's a good man) that he's received very bad counsel.

Over in Egypt, the public sector employees who enjoy special privileges and benefits are the military.

Then, there was moderate Obama differing with Hillary over whether or not people ought to have to buy in to a national health care plan. He was against it.

Shaking some of the much-abused bargaining privileges away from the teachers unions in Wisconsin via legislation amounted to villainizing public workers. But thugs threatening the lives of their political opponents, not worth a comment from anti-bullying guy.

The judge who blocked implementation of Walker's bill, then went on vacation, has a son who is a labor rep.

Coverage in Wisconsin:

My own view is that Walker opponents are hurting their cause with this kind of activity. Without mentioning the Journal Sentinel or criticizing its coverage, I made that point in a March 18 e-mail that provided links to the Nolte and Althouse material. My distribution list included George Stanley, managing editor of the Journal Sentinel.

Stanley responded, “Both sides are demonizing each other with deliberate, dishonest propaganda….You reap what you sow.”

I asked, “Are you suggesting that the behavior of Walker supporters is comparable to that of his opponents?” He replied, “I don’t ‘suggest’ like you, George. I didn’t say a word about behavior or go to your links. I prefer honesty to bullshit.”

I replied, “You use the word "propaganda" and say "both sides" are guilty. Death threats. Nails in the driveway. Obscene graffiti. The list goes on and on. This amazing and unwarranted conclusion apparently is how the MJS rationalizes not covering the story.”

I asked Stanley if I could quote him, as I wanted to submit an op-ed to the paper. He said, “No, you’re just full of shit, that’s all I’m saying.” Not sure if the latter comment was a response to my request or just his way of emphasizing his disagreement with my views.

We now have a better understanding of why the Journal Sentinel has shortchanged this important aspect of the ongoing story. In the managing editor’s view, “both sides” apparently have culpability, “you reap what you sow,” and, in the end, it’s “bullshit.”

P.S. As part of this exchange, Stanley claimed I would “mis-quote” him. On request, I will provide the full text of our exchange.It does not fit the template laid out in Sunday’s paper by Editor Marty Kaiser. Referring to the volume of reader reaction to the Capitol news, he said, “We are doing our best to respond to each phone call, e-mail and letter. We explain to readers the difference between our news pages and our opinion pages.”

Majority of Walker's emails backed his legislation.

Chicago, where a Daley nephew is getting away with manslaughter, is sending Wisconsin Jan Schakowsky and her allies, to show how democracy is done.

Cuz we ain't enlightened, capisce?