Good Union, Bad Union (part 1)

Political discussions are best when there is ambivalence in the situation, the writer, or the readers. There is an opportunity to discuss unions on that level, although so far, the discussion of the Wisconsin public unions has been bitterly partisan. You can be against overpaying public unions -- primarily in the form of pensions and benefits -- and still see a constructive purpose for unions in the private sector and in the right industries.

The worst part of the discussion so far should offend everyone, regardless of how friendly they are to unions. Democrats are trying to compare public sector unions in Wisconsin to genuine freedom fighters in North Africa and the Middle East. Why? Just because they are having demonstrations?

In the Middle East protesters are risking their lives. They are trying to overthrow an oppressive regime and build a new country. In contrast, the public sector unions in Wisconsin are trying to preserve the status quo, in which they are a privileged caste compared to the thralls in the private sector who pay their salaries.

On a different level, the discussions have been full of silly anachronisms. I almost expected Democrats to trot out old folk songs from the Wobbly (International Workers of the World) era. Let's see, how does it go: union man, union man...something or other...a full lunch can? Then there's the old song about the Peabody Coal company in Harlan County, Kentucky. (?) My memory is rusty. How about stories of Pinkerton scabs breaking the heads of strikers. There is a venerable romance about Union Man fighting the evil capitalist exploiter. There is some truth underlying this mythology; but it has nothing to do with public sector unions in Wisconsin.

In my own neck of the woods there is a movie called "Salt of the Earth": a romance about exploited Mexican or Indian miners a couple generations ago, in the local copper mines. Modern elitist Democrats love to trot this movie out when they want to remind everyone that they own the high moral ground. 

What they won't mention is that if he/she had their way, the copper mine would be closed altogether for environmental reasons. (Electric cars and windmills don't need any copper, you know.) Not paying high enough wages and benefits is exploitation, you see; but wiping the job out altogether is "progressive", as long as it's done for the proper reasons. Presumably the unemployed miners will move to Silicon Valley or Seattle and become highly paid software engineers.

That's enough debunking of the Democrats' posturing. Next episode I'll move on to a different point of view.