Republicans Wrong in Wisconsin?

Watching coverage of the demonstrations in Madison, Wisconsin one would think thousands of hard working Americans are being battered by Republican proposals to put restrictions on collective bargaining by government employees. Perhaps we should look beyond the shouting and sign waving by the state house occupants. The facts may spell good news for working Wisconsinites (and those in other states).
Ohio University economist Richard Vedder has spent decades studying effects of unionism on the work force. In a paper published in August, 2010 he compared employment  in states which require workers to belong to a union and those that don't (Right to Work states).  Here's a quote from that paper:

Four Midwestern forced-unionism states — Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana — suffered absolute private-sector job declines over the past decade that were worse than those of any of the other 46 states. Midwestern forced-unionism states (the four just mentioned, plus Missouri, Wisconsin and Minnesota) lost a net total of 1.88 million private-sector jobs.
Combined, these seven forced-unionism states had 8.1% fewer private-sector jobs in 2009 than they did back in 1999.
Meanwhile, the five Midwestern Right to Work states (North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa and Kansas) experienced an overall private-sector job increase of 2.3%.
Moreover, from 1999 to 2009, real personal income in Midwestern Right to Work states grew by 17.3% — an increase two-and-a-half times as a great as the combined real personal income growth in Midwestern forced-unionism states.

So as you see efforts to try and maintain the status quo for unionism in these states may be working against the folks. Perhaps we (and especially they) should be thinking about the impact of those efforts on the entire economy. Are these sign waving protesters really concerned about the working class?

The argument on the pro-union side seems to be that it betters wages and benefits for members. True? No doubt there's anecdotal evidence to support the argument. But what does history show? At a time when unionism was negligible (3% of the American workforce) and manufacturing grew at an incredible 50% (1860-1890) and another 37%( 1890-1937) American workers were so much better off than their  much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe.

Do union wages increase? Absolutely! Some studies show unionized labor earn wages 15% higher than nonunion employees. These same studies show that wages in general suffer as a result of an economy that is up to 40% smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unions.

Bottom line for me is this;  shouldn't workers have a choice whether or not they prefer union membership?

Taxpayers Vs. Public Employee Unions

Isn't it curious that public employee unions seem always supportive of higher taxes and more spending. The reasons behind this are somewhat obvious. The more money taken from taxpayers the more likely their employer (the government) will have money to fund even more benefits and higher salaries.

In the private sector businesses hope to increase their income through sales and services desired by the consumer. The big difference  is that business income is from the voluntary exchange with the consumer while government takes money by force. Put another way, the difference between a corporation, or other form of business, and government is guns. If a taxpayer doesn't turn over money to the government the government will take it by force. Using the force of government public employees unions see their own path to wealth and power. Here are examples:

•  California, 2004-Teachers Association, SEIU, Council of Community Health Agencies lead a successful $4.7 million dollar campaign to raise the state's income tax rates. They gave $2.3 million to that cause.
• Washington state, 2010-SEIU and the National Education Association donated $3.4 million to the campaign to impose an income tax in the state.
• New York state, 2008-09, United Teachers Union, the state's health care unions gave $1.75 million to launch a series of attack ads against cuts in medicaid and a cap on property taxes.
• Oregon, 2010-Oregon Education Association, SEIU contribute approximately $5.25 million to pass measures to raise business and income taxes.
• Arizona, 2010-teachers unions and public safety unions influential in supporting sales tax increase from 5.6% to 6.6%.

These are just a few state examples. There are many, many more. Consider your own community. How about nationally? Public Unions are among the biggest players. The Center for Responsive Politics reports the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has been the third biggest contributor to federal campaigns for the past 20 years. The National Education Association is number 8, the SEIU is number 10. These organizations fund campaigns knowing the results will lead to higher taxes and more power to influence further elections.

I'm still searching for those campaigns that ask for lower taxes and less spending supported by the public employee unions. Whose side are these unions on anyway?  Not the taxpayers!

Note to Public Employees

Did you notice that breath of fresh air that just blew over the political landscape?  I noticed it the day Donald Trump stood before the attendees at the CEPAC convention. Here's a group who has for years cast their votes for Ron Paul as the favorite Republican candidate for President.  The fresh breeze blew across the auditorium when entrepreneur Donald Trump took to the stage and told the gathering "Ron Paul has no chance of being elected President". Now this is something political supporters are not used to, someone told the truth. They reacted accordingly with loud boos and jeers.

It has happened on rare occasion before. I recall seeing news reports of New Jersey Governor Chris Cristy holding a town hall meeting when confronted by a public school teacher. The teacher was lamenting the Governor's plans to cap property taxes and revisit public employees collective bargaining. The teacher claimed he was not compensating her for her education and experience. Governor Cristy replied (are you ready for that fresh breeze?) "well then, you don't have to do it".

Now I see more public employee unions trying to preserve what no private sector employee ever had, increasing pay and benefits in troubled times. I confess I'm a bit tired of hearing these government workers claiming to be public servants. Here's my note to these public servants;  If you really want to serve the public, QUIT YOUR JOB. Decreasing the public payroll would be a real breath of fresh air.