Distractions? Or Are Democrats Really This Stupid?
- Thursday, March 5, 2009, 8:48
- Krusty Konservative
- 877 views
- 15 comments
I don’t really know what to make of House Democrats filing two Labor Union bills yesterday. One of the bills, HF 530 would allow union workers to choose their own doctor if they get injured on the job. The other is the most contentious bill they could file, HF 555. HF 555 requires non union members to pay union dues. Talk about un-American.
I think there is a good possibility that the Democrats move on the choice of doctor legislation. Like prevailing wage, it’s an issue that they can spin as pro-worker pretty easily. If you want a great explanation of what this bill would do, and how it would harm Iowa business, click here.
I have a feeling that the Fair Share bill is another distraction, just like the bicycle bill and the Electoral College bill was over in the Senate. Democrats know that the possibility of Fair Share legislation being a live round this session will cause many pro-business groups, legislators, and the media to focus on it.
Why would they want to do that? Simple, they would rather get beat up over a labor issue than have people talking about the mess they caused with the state budget. And it’s working since I’m writing about it this morning.
The thing that makes me nervous however, is the fact that Democrats, and especially Chet Culver, have to do something for the labor unions before next year’s elections. Thus far they have done nothing but make the unions look foolish. Which is why I think we will either see them take up HF 530, or prevailing wage language will be attached to Culver’s $750 million dollar bonding bill, which he now calls FEMA-Plus.
As for Fair Share, surveys have consistently shown that over 75% of Americans support Right to Work laws, but the Labor Bosses don’t care, and Iowa Democrats just don’t get it. This issue is about freedom, and it’s just not American to force anyone to pay join a group or union that they don’t want to.
I think Lincoln said it best, “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.”
With all of the talk about Obama and Lincoln, maybe they should take time to see what America’s greatest President had to say about an issue like this.
About the Author
Krusty Konservative has written 284 stories on this site.
Herschel Krustofski is the pseudonym for the anonymous author of Krusty Konservative, a blog which focuses on Iowa Politics. Created in February of 2006, Krusty Konservative is the undisputed heavyweight champion of the Iowa blogosphere. Since its conception, Krusty Konservative has never shied from tackling controversial issues, and providing insight to the inner workings of Republican politics in Iowa.
15 Comments on “Distractions? Or Are Democrats Really This Stupid?”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What are we to expect when the speaker of the house is the mouthpiece for seiu?
The only reason Republicans don’t like labor unions is because they politically support their rival. Unions are more vital today than almost any time in our history. Unions are the only force willing or able to take on the giant corporations that are tightening their stranglehold our nations’ economy and culture, and with all the news of corruption and deceit that played a part in our economy tanking, we could use more labor unions.
The middle class is stronger when unions are stronger. If Republicans want to pick on the working class then I say do it. It will ensure Dem majorities for years to come.
I learned a long time ago not to trust people who say “surveys have consistently shown” without any data or real evidence.
> The only reason Republicans don’t like labor unions is because they politically support their rival.
No, that’s not why. I don’t give a crap about who supports whom. Fiscal conservatives (democrat and republican alike) don’t like unions because they raise the cost of labor for the few, at the cost of many. It’s the 2nd best deal to being a bank CEO. All sorts of wage guarantees, without requiring any level of performance. In fact, there is no incentive for a union employee to ever work any harder than anyone else, because you already know what you are getting because it is GUARANTEED for you.
For example, with the recent prevailing wage bill, legislators (and Union representatives) admitted it would increase the cost of public works projects by 10-20%. So, best case is that if a city had 10 projects approved and planned, they could only afford 9. Whose benefiting there? Not majority of people in the city, but the big company (represented by a union) that won the contract. So 10% benefit at the cost of 90%.
> The middle class is stronger when unions are stronger.
Really? You can’t just say it; you have to have evidence for it. Don’t believe me? Superman is real. That’s all. Believe it because I wrote it on the internet.
Anyhow…most of the middle class does not belong to a labor union. How does collective bargaining help those that are not a part of the collective being bargained for? How do office workers at Principal, Nationwide, Wells Fargo, Pioneer, and other central Iowa employees of non-union represented companies benefit from this? These workers all have to pay their taxes and pay into the system; “they” being these “fat-cat” office dweebs that make 30-70k a year and have 2.2 kids and pay their taxes and don’t have collective bargaining.
I’m happy to be one of these office dweebs, and I have to pay a co-pay when I go to the doctor (unlike union workers), and I only get a raise if I perform well AND my company makes money that year — I don’t have a guaranteed raise written into my contract (unlike union workers). If my company does really poorly, I might lose my job (and I don’t get paid my salary for another 12 months like union workers).
I keep hearing the argument that when union leaders ensure guarantees from companies for their members, that even non union workers are benefited. Hmm, as a simple office worker with a couple of degrees (that I paid for myself) that surprises me. Even the most cursory examination of this argument would prove it false.
Take a window manufacturer, for example. Let’s say they’ve got 5,000 salaried office workers earning roughly $40k a year that are not represented by a union. Now you’ve also got 5,000 workers that work in manufacturing, and they average $35,000 a year…but, they have a guaranteed contract for 4 years. So when the “greedy” company has a down year because nobody is building homes and needs to cut back, they are only able to cut the office workers. So they lose their jobs. The guys in the plant keep making windows, or do nothing at all because nobody is buying windows…nothing except cash their paychecks that their union guaranteed for them. The office workers be damned, they should have started a union.
In the end, I don’t care if you want a union or are in a union, just don’t make non-members subsidize it.
I wouldn’t be so reflexively anti-Fair Share.
Understand that membership in public employer unions is quite low. Only the hard core folks are in the union, and the hardest of the hard core constitute the leadership. The vast majority of regular and moderate folks don’t participate. And they can safely ignore the union because, hey, they aren’t paying anything.
Now imagine you are one of those regular and moderate folk, and all of the sudden you are getting billed (against your will) by the union. How are you going to react? Maybe . . just maybe . . . you are going to get involved with the union. The result? A more moderate and reasonable union, with the influence of the hard cores curtailed. Or, maybe . . . just maybe . . . you will go a step further, and move to decertify the union to keep the dues from being withdrawn.
I think the second scenario is less likely, but I think the first scenario will happen.
Democrats will do anything to pay back their union cronies that pay for their campaigns.
Someone please explain to me how it would be fair for a few employees to reap the benefits of union representation without chipping in anything.
Someone? Anyone?
Steve, some people think you shouldn’t be forced to join a union just to have a job.
Maury,
Republicans will do anything to pay back their corporate cronies that pay for their campaigns.
How about we compromise: Let’s both support public financing of campaigns. Then there will no one to pay back but the taxpayers.
EchoBuster: How are Republicans paying back their “corporate cronies?” One, Republicans don’t control anything. Two, what is a “corporate crony?” The last time I checked Iowa’s biggest corporations give to both sides and most pay off Chet Culver and Mike Gronstal more than anyone else. MidAmerican the states biggest utility? Principal Financial Group that spends more time lobbying on gay issues and smoking than business issues? Who are we talking about? Get your facts straight and then come back. These corporations are stupid for doing it because no matter how much they pay Gronstal or how many times they fly around Chet Culver on their private jet — they are still Democrats and will still do whatever they have to to bend over backwards to please labor.
Maury, you don’t have to join the union, just negotiate your own contract next time. Good luck!
> Now imagine you are one of those regular and moderate folk, and all of the sudden you are getting billed (against your will) by the union. How are you going to react? Maybe . . just maybe . . . you are going to get involved with the union.
So, that’s the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”. That’s like me joining the democratic party and all of a sudden we have an anti-abortion stance emerge. Very unlikely. Sounds good, but reality doesn’t bear that out.
Hey “Maury Iswrong”. I have an idea, why don’t you go to college so you don’t have to worry about it. Smart people don’t need luck or to be shaken down under the guise of being taken care of.
Unions only exist to bankrupt companies, collect dues for the Democrat party, and to elect Democrats. Plain, simple, the facts.
“”Unions are the only force willing or able to take on the giant corporations…”"
Har har har. Like GM? Way to go there.
Unions *are* giant corporations, and they put crushing burdens on the general public to pad their pensions and milk disproportionate benefits through political strong-arming. This isnt the era of the Pullman strikes or the Matewan miners. This is about contractors who game the system to milk public spending money and triple the costs. You tell me that it makes sense that I pay my way through a BA, and the a MBA, and I still make less an hour than the jerk ‘inspecting’ the elevators in the building. Take your moral superiority and go jump in a lake, because you’re full of it.