You don't appear to understand the topic of discussion in Wisconsin and here on this thread.
That, or you're missing something. I've actually been paying very close attention, so you can guess which I'm going to pick.
The issue is the PUBLIC serctor unions being allowed to have collective bargaining rights not PRIVATE sector unions.
I'm aware. Were you going to explain the significance of this difference to you?
Since you brought up Reagan, and quoted him out of context
Exactly what context is there that could make the section I quoted mean anything different about collective bargaining? I'm guessing you have in mind the public/private difference, but it doesn't have much import, despite what the talking heads like Beck are telling you.
, here is what FDR the Democrat said:
"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service"
Ah, yes, the FDR quote. Since you've expressed a concern for taking things out of context, let's quote it more fully first, shall we? Here's the letter from which you're quoting:
Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service – August 16, 1937
My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
Very sincerely yours,
First of all, FDR wasn’t against unions, since the letter was written to a union, and he was writing to congratulate them on the occasion of their 20th anniversary. He also didn't oppose collective bargaining itself; hence his qualifier, “as usually understood.” He, like Meany, simply didn't think it was possible in the context of the public sector. The 70-odd years since proved them wrong, but in a way they would've celebrated. Suggesting that they were somehow anti-union is an absurd distortion. You've been listening to too much Coulter.
Then, of course, there is his concern about public sector strikes, as potentially 'paralyzing' the government, as 'unthinkable and intolerable'. This is a VERY curious authority to cite if you come from a party that is calling for a government shutdown, and actually DID shutdown the government in 1994. Apparently this is only ok if you're agitating for tax cuts for billionaires. For the middle class, FORBODEN! Context is a real pain in the butt, n'est ce pas?
Your analysis also doesn't stand up to economic scrutiny. The point of collective bargaining is to ensure that labor gets a fair shake against against the organized forces of industry. A much more telling, if ultimately misguided, point to have made, would have been to point out that there is no industry here, just the government. You snidely ask whether I understand the difference between public and private, but you fail to point out the significance of that difference, instead waving it about like a magic talisman against critical analysis. Let's set it down and dig in, hm?
Firstly, let's address the superficial difference. Clearly, industry is not the government. Government, however, clearly IS organized in similar fashion, however; the entire purpose of government is organization to address issues that individuals and industries cannot deal with alone. So that parallel to Smith's line of reasoning is intact. Equally clear is that government has an interest in depressing the wages of its workers - we don't need to look any further than Walker to see that, to say nothing of attacks on unions in other states, or broader budgeting concerns. So, the parallels hold. Under Smith's view, public unions make just as much sense as private ones.
What about a modern economic analysis, though? Well, the process of collective bargaining elicits accurate pricing information, ensuring that both sides' interests are protected. With public employees, the 'employer' is properly the bureaucracy, which has access to the kind of information specific to their sphere of activity that industry does on the private side. It is NOT the office of an elected official, who does NOT magically gain such insights merely by virtue of having been elected. This is the market's way of pricing labor, nothing more and nothing less. This is, no doubt, why Kennedy authorized public sector union bargaining in an executive order, and why it has worked for decades since, despite the concerns about it prevalent in the 40s and 50s. This is also why Walker's unilateral pricing decisions are anti-market, command pricing.
Again, I'll ask, are there any righties out there that have formulated their own opinions on the topic, instead of simply tossing out decontextualized quotes they picked up from right-wing talking heads (do a search for the quotes he tossed around here, if you doubt)? I would really like to hear from you.
PL
