Let's learn from Wisconsin's example

The protests backed by unions and Democrats in Madison, Wis., are getting widespread attention that is much deserved, because it is bringing the nature and costs of collective bargaining to the forefront for all to see.

Three weeks ago, we knew nothing about the wage and benefit arrangements for public employees in Wisconsin, Indiana or Ohio, and neither did most Americans. That has been changing since the protests got under way, making it clear as day how things have been working in those states while at the same time shining a light on the massive liabilities other states face due to years of collective bargaining that have gradually and substantially contributed to gaping state budget deficits.

In the case of Wisconsin, newly elected Republican Gov. Scott Walker is attempting to address a whopping $3.6 billion deficit partly by proposing that public union members contribute more toward their health insurance and pension funds, which some union leaders have conceded to.

But that’s not the main issue. The big fuss is over Walker’s proposal to end collective bargaining over benefits but not wages, and to prohibit automatic dues deductions from paychecks, thereby allowing public workers to choose whether they pay dues. His proposal is also intended to help school districts and local governments break away from a monopolistic, union-owned insurance provider that offers some of the most expensive insurance on the market. Walker estimates schools could save millions using alternative insurance sources.

While thousands protest in Madison against “union busting,” Walker’s position is that one-time concessions aren’t enough. The proposed limits on collective bargaining are aimed at preventing future bargaining agreements that will expose the state to deficit situations again and again.

Ironically enough, those deficits usually lead to budget cuts that adversely impact schools and their students — so don’t just accept at face value the union claims that teachers are opposing Walker “for the sake of the kids.”

It’s no secret that there is a cozy, symbiotic relationship between the Democratic Party and public sector unions, but it is often overlooked as being a benign fact of life that causes no real harm. Public employees are constituents too, after all, and when state coffers are flush they have been favored by lawmakers who want to “do the right thing” by their employees.

Trouble is, those same politicians are often long gone by the time the bill for those handsome benefits comes due. And as soon as a benefit goes into place in a government job, it becomes the equivalent of an “entitlement,” almost never to be rescinded. Compare that to all the private-sector employees who have had to take pay cuts and benefit reductions since 2008.

All this has continued for much of the past 50 years, and the public has gone along with it — but the times they are a-changing — thanks to the budget crises in Wisconsin and several other Midwest states.

The flight of 14 Wisconsin Democratic senators into hiding across state lines to block a vote on Gov. Walker’s plans has shined a stark light on the Democrat/government-worker alliance, and raised never-before-asked questions about conflict of interest.

Do those senators work for their taxpaying, private sector constituents, or do they serve government employees that taxpayers must support? Their actions provide the answer, and draw attention to the fact that their party has supported union-friendly policies for years, often at great cost to taxpayers and usually with great benefit to Democratic candidates.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees poured more than $90 million into Democratic campaigns during the 2010 mid-term elections, and that unions combined dropped about $400 million to support Democrats during the 2008 election.

That’s probably the biggest distinction that can be drawn between private- and public-sector unions. The much larger and more influential public unions can essentially play a major role in electing their political bosses. And while private-sector unions can go aground if their employers go out of business, public-sector union workers are supported by taxpayers who can and often are coerced into paying more through higher taxes. Another important difference: Private sector unions have roots in railing against deplorable working conditions, while public-sector unions cannot claim a legacy of mistreatment in the workplace.

Perhaps Walker could have pursued his policy changes in a way that would have averted protests that have clogged the state Capitol for two weeks. But a serious challenge to the status quo was inevitable in Wisconsin, and it’s a good thing Americans are now paying attention to Wisconsin’s situation. Similar but bigger battles lie ahead in other states, and the protests will likely be even more pronounced.