Thursday, February 24, 2011

Wackenhut, Vodka, Butts, Labor Unions, Collective Bargaining, and Rachel Maddow's Hypocrisy


How dare Rachel Maddow suggest that the Wackenhut security workers should have been fired!  The vodka butt drinking is perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle which should be protected from discrimination.  And you are guilty of hate speech!

In case you don't appreciate the sarcasm of the preceding paragraph, it was intended to point out the hypocrisy of the liberal homosexual agenda supporting Rachel Maddow.  Of course, even if the facts presented in the above video about the Wackenhut folks and Governor Walker is really true, that does not necessarily say anything one way or another about the wisdom of collective bargaining for public employees.

One example of a bad result of the hiring of a private security company doesn't necessarily mean that that it always a bad idea.  Rachel Maddow's sensationalism which takes the focus off of the real issue.  But I agree with her that Walker should be condemned if he exercised powers which did not belong to him.  But this is more hypocrisy on Maddow's part because she sees nothing wrong with outrageous expansions of federal power well beyond the limits placed by the Constitution.  All of these doctors who are giving fake doctor's notes to public employees attending protests is another thing that is taking away the focus from the real issue. Keep in mind that just because these doctors and protesters are committing fraud, doesn't necessarily mean that SOME public employees may have legitimate concerns about the proposed legislation.

Another flaw in her argument is that the Wackenhut employees were paid with taxpayer's money and chosen by a politician.  So what really is the difference between public and private?  An example of a real private sector solution would be to get rid of all public schools and turn the responsibility of educating children back to the parents where it belongs, entirely removing politicians and taxpayers' money from the equation.

Rather than resorting to sensationalism, we should have a real dialog about this issue of collective bargaining rights of public employees.  I actually don't know whether or not I support the proposed measures in Wisconsin and Ohio.  I certainly think that public school teachers are overpaid and as alluded to earlier, in my opinion, unnecessary.  But police and firefighters are another issue.  They certainly do earn their pay and I know some of them who are afraid that this legislation would endanger their livelihood.  It isn't just about pay, but they are afraid that they could fired for no reason and have no recourse.  Also, without collective bargaining, the local politicians could cut firefighter and police pay in order to take for themselves the money designated for that purpose.  (This is especially prone to happen in large cities.)  Generally, I believe that such problems should be handled at the most local level possible.  But one case which we need to consider is that many of the city police and firefighters live in the suburbs, and cannot vote for the politicians who make the decisions concerning their employment.  With collective bargaining, an arbitrator is chosen to decide the conditions of the employment.  This is not an ideal situation, but getting rid of it (or severely restricting it) for essential services like police protection is something that we need to think long and hard about before trying.  Again, I have not read Ohio's S. 5 or Governor Walker's plan so I don't know whether or not I would support it.  They are very complicated pieces of legislation and the laws already on the books are very complicated.  I doubt that most of the people on both sides of the issue have read and understood the proposed legislation and current law well enough to really make an informed decision.

No comments: