Governing in unison against unions
By Jim Surber 

Consider Governor Daniels of Indiana, Walker of Wisconsin, and Kasich of Ohio. Have you been wondering how these leaders, and at least eight or nine more in other states, all came up with the same ideas and the same strategies at the same time? Was this pure coincidence, or did they all meet together some time ago to define problems and formulate a consensus on specific actions to be taken? Or, could it be that this lockstep philosophy, these identical blame assignments, and the current political over-reach are the collective of a tune called by a much bigger piper?

The governors certainly seem to be reading from the same playbook. Not only are their agendas similar and the content of their proposals virtually identical, but they all recite the same scripted justifications for their extreme actions and proposals: “The sky is falling on our great state, but luckily I was elected governor to do the will of the people, so I am taking these bold steps to balance the budget.”

Forget that the money problems of their states, and all others, were the result of a nationwide financial meltdown brought about by Wall Street being allowed to run amok. Forget that virtually all people are hurting, and will continue to hurt, to different degrees from this extreme malady. Forget that rampant government spending was performed by those who are still in office and that necessary cuts in government spending are best done uniformly and from top to bottom.

All original statements of “shared sacrifice” have morphed into a common enemy in the form of teachers, public safety and public works personnel. The new common solution to balancing budgets is to neuter the fundamental workplace rights of public wage earners. If you examine this goal, you will find that it has little to do with saving money and much more to do with partisan political over-reach.

It has been suggested that if balancing the budget was really their goal, the governors could easily achieve it by setting dunking tanks on the capitol grounds, putting the butts of themselves and legislators on the boards, and charging five dollars per throw for those wanting a chance to dunk them. Lines would stretch for miles and budgets could be balanced, one dunk at a time.

But we have become a more civilized people in the last one hundred years, and public spectacles are not so popular. We are repelled by the type of violence that our forefathers endured. In the labor wars of the early 20th century, industrial barons hired goons to bloody the heads of laborers, or simply gun down those struggling to get a share of economic or political power, all to preserve their profits.

While the old barons are long-gone, there is a new group of fabulously rich families and corporate leaders with the same power and profit goals who have been tirelessly working to disarm labor, repeal the New Deal, and return America to those “glory days” when the robber barons ruled. They are the owners of interests such as Wal-Mart, Amway and Blackwater, and carry benign names such as American Federation for Children, and American Legislative Exchange Council. They seek the demise of public education and labor unions, the privatization of public services, and the disempowerment of wage earners. Their dedication is quantified in hundreds of millions of dollars invested over the past forty years to achieve these goals.

Today, the hired thugs wear suits and wield computers and currency instead of clubs and guns. There is no physical force or personal threats employed, as they coordinate political operatives in PACS, think tanks, law firms, front groups and, naturally, the obedient politicians.

Of course, certain aspects and functions of unions are controversial and probably always will be. An additional dollar paid to a worker was, and still is, potential profit to the owner or stockholder. Unions contribute heavily to those politicians who support them, just like some corporate interests contribute heavily to those politicians who seek to destroy unions. This inefficient equilibrium has existed for many years, but will quickly collapse upon the dismemberment of either side.

But does not a successful society require the opportunity for all to earn a respectable living? Henry Ford, the successful industrialist, soon realized that his workers had to earn enough to be able to buy his product in order for him to succeed. I am baffled but curious that this lesson has apparently been lost on the new breed of industrialist.

Are we ready to concede that rights and principles negotiated through blood and strife should now be annulled? Are they, like women’s voting rights and civil rights, a necessary empowerment for a civilized society?

Perhaps it would be well to sit back and think about some of the things that have made America great, and what their destruction may bring. Also, remember that there are many Americans who hate unions and also many who hate public workers. Their willingness to support the political maneuver known as Senate Bill 5 is perfectly understandable. Those who do not share their views but feel that the passage of Ohio Issue 2 is a necessary fiscal step, should rethink and possibly reconsider.