Throwing Public Unions Under the Bus
Sunday 02 January 2011
by: Shamus Cooke, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

"Teachers unions are being twice targeted, having suffered under Obama's nefarious Race to the Top program."(Photo: Flutterbudgęt)
The stage is set and the main actors in Congress and in the corporate establishment are ready to perform after rehearsing behind closed doors for the coming assault on organized labor's most powerful sector: public workers.
The final preparations were smoothed out in Obama's tax "compromise" with the Republicans, which gave details of the drama's first act. The tax plan purposely did not include a critical element for state funding, called the Build America Bonds program (BAB), which allows recession-sunk states to easily borrow money from the federal government. In the face of enormous deficits, the states would be left to drown. Reuters blogger James Pethokoukis explains:
Congressional Republicans [and Democrats] appear to be quietly but methodically executing a plan that would a) avoid a federal bailout of spendthrift states and b) cripple public employee unions by pushing cash-strapped states such as California and Illinois to declare bankruptcy. This may be the biggest political battle in Washington, my Capitol Hill sources tell me, of 2011.
Public employee unions would be crippled by bankruptcy because union contracts are notoriously easy to shred in the court system, where "nonpartisan" judges always decide against unions.
To further ensure that states will become bankrupt, yet another law was recently proposed that, if approved, will keep money out of states' pockets by making it harder for states to sell public bonds. This law demands that states use overly strict accounting methods when reporting their debts to public workers' retirement accounts, so that the state's "credit worthiness" will shrivel. (Reagan used the same trick to destroy the pensions offered for private-sector workers.)
Two birds are killed with one stone: public employees will find their pensions under further attack, while states will be refused credit because of the new accounting methods. The New York Times explains:
The bill gives local governments a choice: they can report [pension obligations] the way the [Congressional] members want them to report, or they can give up the ability to issue tax-exempt bonds. That is, of course, no choice at all.
and:
In the end, I suspect ways will be found to abrogate some pension promises. But even if that does not happen, the trend away from defined-benefit pensions is likely to affect most younger public employees, as it already has their counterparts in the private sector. The retirement safety net will thus become a little more frayed.
In summary, pensions for state workers are on the cutting board, to be replaced by the 401(k) scam, while state bankruptcy will "abrogate" [abolish] union contracts. But as it stands now, states cannot legally declare bankruptcy. This minor obstacle is being handled quickly for showtime, as Pethokoukis explains:
Some Republicans hope the shock of the newly revealed [state] debt totals will grease the way towards explicitly permitting states to declare bankruptcy. Indeed, legislation amending federal bankruptcy law is currently being prepared by congressional Republicans.
The current Congress and President Obama are intentionally creating a nationwide anti-union atmosphere. The Democrats' silence over the above issues is, in fact, a signal of approval. In the same way that Obama announced a federal pay freeze for federal workers, federal actions towards labor quickly set the tone for how states deal with labor. Right-wing forces are consequently given the green light, and Democratic and Republican state representatives will do their best to implement their own anti-labor laws to ingratiate themselves to the feds in the hopes of promotion. The feds act as a music conductor and the states respond as an orchestra.
This dynamic is similar to the one under Democratic president Harry Truman, who began his own anti-labor presidency by presiding over a flurry of anti-union legislation, which quickly opened the gates to Senator Joseph McCarthy and other right-wing fanatics, who performed anti-worker deeds under the grateful eyes of a Democratic president.
Public workers are being targeted because they are the strongest sector of the national labor movement and their strength is incompatible with the agenda of the political-corporate establishment: making working people pay for the bank bailouts and two foreign wars.
The recession has already weakened public employee unions; unknown thousands of workers have already lost their jobs due to the states budget crises, which will be peaking in many states in the coming years. Public union membership is being decimated while workers are becoming demoralized due to lack of action or alternatives offered by union leadership. Teachers' unions are being twice targeted, having already suffered under Obama's nefarious Race to the Top program.
Public workers cannot be spectators in this unfolding drama. They must learn to act collectively. Unions must educate their membership about the gravity of the coming assault. Anti-union attacks must be resisted while alternatives are proposed; state funding must be increased by raising taxes on the rich and the corporations. If public employee unions are busted, the rest of the labor movement will be targeted next – but it will be too weak to defend itself.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
This could never happen in
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:50 — Anonymous (not verified)This could never happen in most European countries, where there is inter-union cooperation and a tradition of mutual support. The problem with the municipal workers unions is they cannot depend on general union support. While Republicans can be quite and willfully incompetent in most areas of governance, they have proven themselves skillful at manipulating the voting process, legislating tax scamming and deregulation, and driving various elements of the population against each other. The North American myth of rugged individualistic self-reliance pushed to a socio-pathological level is used to deceive.
In recent times, Democrats have become more adept at these kinds of machinations. I believe they have engaged in these behaviors in the belief that it will insure their continued survival and self-enrichment.
With regard to the voting tendencies and nature of unions in North America, I have written elsewhere:
I believe there is a short, simple answer to the questions as to why workers, specifically union members, vote against the interests of the working class. First a postulate: any voter who votes for a Republican in the US votes against the interests of the working class.
Except in the few cases of steel workers, auto workers, taxi drivers, teachers unions, or municipal services unions that can pass as real unions, there are no labor unions in the US. Most that pass themselves off as labor unions (including some of the above) are in fact trade unions. These trade unions include electricians, plumbers, pilots, air traffic controllers, building workers, medical professionals to name a few. They exist strictly to protect the interests of their immediate members. And all unions - labor and trade unions - only represent a single digit or low teens percentage minority of US workers. Whereas it is not uncommon for nations of Europe to experience general strikes or nation wide worker protests, such a phenomenon has not occurred in recent time in the US, at least not in the last 40 or 50 years in my knowledge.
Workers' identity with organized labor in the US does not exist. This is the land of rugged individualism, of a self-interested population, of the "Protestant Ethic". Until the culture changes and the myths are dispelled, nothing much else will change. I consider myself a "social democrat". Bernie Sanders, Social Democratic Party, a party of one. If there were hundreds of thousands, or millions of Bernies out there things might be different.
In Obama, what we needed,
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 12:57 — Anonymous (not verified)In Obama, what we needed, urgently, desperately, as a last resort was FDR II.
But what we got in Obama was Ronald Reagan II.
I predict: that within 10 years the USA will be taking loans from the IMF.
Re: "in obama, what we
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 13:56 — Anonymous (not verified)Re: "in obama, what we needed"
Yeah, too bad what we really got with obama is a corporate man for hire, a wolf guarding the hen house, a man that was propped up as "HOPE" to fool the unsuspecting naive folks. The hopeful public thought just because of the color of his skin he would be different.
Ha, he's on the same payroll as bush, Clinton (NAFTA) and Reagan. The people need to realize that big money can come in any color, sex, national origin or political party. So sad to say, if there is any hope, it needs to come from a cultural revolution from the people up to the government, not the other way around, because this country is already in the process of being flushed down the toilet
And if you voted for EITHER
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 14:07 — Alan8 (not verified)And if you voted for EITHER of the two corporate parties, THIS IS YOUR FAULT!
And the whole country has to pay the price for your ignorant voting.
What the workers need in
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 14:32 — Anonymous (not verified)What the workers need in this country is what Poland had, solidarity where all workers are incorporated in a single union and then when the republicans try something like this shut the whole country down.
What we may soon have in
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 14:53 — Midwest Tom (not verified)What we may soon have in this country is Solidarity against public employees; especially since they now have an average wage that is twice wages in the private sector. Several sources report that average Federal employee pay is $123,049 per year, while the average in the private sector is $63,000. Why should a state that has managed it's finances be required to bail out a state that has not. Illinois has some best unemployment benefits in the country, and they are broke because of it. Why should Indiana and Kentucky be forced to bail them out. In business, if one does not,plan properly, or if ones business disappears, one is forced to lay off people, or cut everyones pay. Why should public unions be any different?
First they came for the Jews
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 15:07 — sdbruns (not verified)First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
If Bill Gates and 10
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 15:09 — sdbruns (not verified)If Bill Gates and 10 homeless people are in a bar, what is the average wage of people in that bar?
How come we do not hear
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 15:27 — Anonymous (not verified)How come we do not hear these same people screaming about the highest paid public employees?
That would be the major sport coaches at public universities.
Take them out of the averages, and we might find that public employees are not so highly paid.
UNIONS: a threat consisting
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 17:01 — Anonymous (not verified)UNIONS: a threat consisting of people organizing, thinking,and acting together. This, my people, is what the criminal enterprise is afraid of: any group that stands up together is a threat to their raping and harvesting of our labors and freedoms. We know who is stealing from us, and they want to make sure that We the People can't resist. These scummy politicians and their corporate pimps won't feel good until they have our citizens grovelling in the gutter for food and water. Their goal can only be our demise. Throw these sick predators and their murdering hirelings into the fires of freedom!!
US worker is led to identify
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 17:35 — Anonarcmous (not verified)US worker is led to identify himself with the management/owner--potential--instead of solidarity with other workers!Not2smart.they always push the HISTORY of the enterprise instead of the worker.
Blaming Unions is a
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 19:44 — JB3 (not verified)Blaming Unions is a smokescreen. Britain, with Thatcher, and Reagan's blessing, attacked Britain's unions claiming that if she did not...... then Britain would lose its manufacturing base. Well, after Thatcher "won", Britain proceeded to close its factories anyways and the Rich got richer while the middle class was decimated. Sound familiar? The once great and glorious British are now a "service society." Serving America it would appear! Then will it be the once great and glorious America serving the Chinese? Just a thought.
A nation run by sociopaths
Sun, 01/02/2011 - 23:06 — Giovanna Lepore (not verified)A nation run by sociopaths is not worthy of being called a nation at all!
Rather than bashing federal
Mon, 01/03/2011 - 07:06 — Giovanna Lepore (not verified)Rather than bashing federal employees it is time to organize EVERY worker: unions are singly responsible for raising the living standards of workers who create the wealth and for humanizing us!
Let's do what the French did
Mon, 01/03/2011 - 09:36 — bang (not verified)Let's do what the French did in the 1700's. I'd like to see some 'union made' guillotines specifically allocated for the top 1% richest of our country.
There is something terribly
Mon, 01/03/2011 - 13:23 — publiclobbyist (not verified)There is something terribly wrong here. Michelle Malkin, who wrote the quintessential anti-Obama book, devoted a chapter to "SEIU: Look for the Union Label." In it, she states how Obama's union connections couldn't be stronger. quoting Andy Stern, President of the SEIU, "There has never been a fight in Illinois or a fight in the nation where our members have not asked Barack Obama for assistance and he has not done everything he could to help us."(p223)
Now, who's right, Malkin or Cooke? Granted, Mr. Cooke's article is more recent but can this leopard really change his colors so easily?