I think the middle class is being hit with a lot of divide and conquer from powerful, moneyed corporate elite. It serves them well so we don't all turn on them.
I've long said that I'd rather see the private sector middle class dream restored than to see the public sector taken down. But for this to happen, the private sector needs help, especially if the Wisconsin unions (and other unions and govvies) want the support of the rest of the working class. Many of us are non-union and in right to work states. If we try to protest the wage cuts/freezes and benefit takeaways we've endured for a long time, we're fired (and I don't mean FIRE'd unless we're already financially secure).
I want to support "the deal" for public employees but we can't do it unless the rest of the middle class starts reversing their downward trend. And just as public unions want our support here, we need their support in advocating the halting of the erosion of the private sector employment deal.
I don't have a problem with union for private company, although I am no fan of them. I figure if management treats workers so badly they need union, than management deserves to have to put up with a union My problem is with public unions is the same that FDR worried about in this
letter. FDR was worried about public employee strikes and he caution that negotiation between government official and unions are much different than in the private sector.
If am an owner of company (and as shareholders most everyone on the forum is) I am pretty confident that when management and union sit down to negotiate and contract, that management and my incentives are aligned. Give the employee sufficient wages and labor rules to maximize the long term profits of the company. Note that sufficient wages is much different than the lowest wage, workers who feel they are being cheated aren't good workers.
In contrast when mayor, city manager or governor sits across the table from a union, I have little confidence that our interests are aligned. First, the elected official doesn't benefit by saving a few million or a few billion from lower labor costs. In fact just the opposite might occur, a labor friendly official benefits by giving into union demands in the form of future campaign contributions, and enthusiastic labor volunteers in the next election. Even when the politician is Republican he doesn't gain much by being to tough in negotiations. The majority of Wisconsin public employee supported Walker's opponent in the last election, but the probably didn't hate the guy. I am sure this has changed and in the 2014 his opponent will receive tons of help. Even when the mayor negotiates in good faith, it is very tempting to agree to benefits who's true cost won't be realized for 10-30 years well after you are out of office. I think this is reason that Walker is smart to focus on benefits.
I think is naive to think that US workers can negotiate their way back to prosperity. We live in a global world and there is no way we can (or in my case want to) go back. If American workers try and prop up wages artificially via unions, companies will just hire Indians, Chinese, and soon Vietnamese, and hopefully in a few years Middle Eastern and African workers. The way for American workers to enjoy a high standard of living is by working harder, but primarily by working smarter.
AFAIK, DC and 25 states allow collective bargaining for public employee unions, 13 prohibit and the rest are a hybrid, say allowing it for Police and Firefighters. Looking at the states that prohibit bargaining vs that those that allow it, I am hard pressed to see how collective bargain makes better government. I don't think the collective bargaining has produce smarter kids, less crime, better roads, or nicer parks. In fact other than schools I'd
say that dozen southern and southwestern state without collective bargaining have a better and certainly less expensive government.