Our Values: Is the attack on public unions aimed at working class, women?
Protesters in Wisconsin last week, picketing Gov. Scott Walker in the snow.
Photo courtesy of Read the Spirit
Editor's note: This post is part of a series by Dr. Baker on Our Values about core American values. This week Dr. Baker is discussing the controversial anti-union frenzy spreading across the country.
Last Friday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker informed the state’s public unions of impending layoff notices to state employees. This action is the latest in a three-week battle over the budget and the role of public unions. During this time, we’ve seen some extraordinary events, such as the mass exodus of the Badger State’s Democratic representatives, who fled to prevent a vote on Walker’s measure.
The bill in question would require schoolteachers, nurses, administrative assistants, secretaries and other public employees to pay more for their pensions and health care insurance. Walker also wants to strip public employees (except police and firefighters) of their collective-bargaining rights. The occupations most affected by Republican union busting (or, depending on your view, budget balancing) are those disproportionately held by women.
Of course, most people don’t work under the protection of unions. Only about 12 percent of American salary and wage earners are members of unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But of these, women make up a significant percentage.
Women are 61 percent of public sector employment at this level, according to data from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Just over half (52 percent) of public sector employees at the state level are women.
Joanne Bamberger of Politics Daily writes, “I don’t want to see a conspiracy where there isn’t one, but as some politicians push to cut reproductive and economic rights for women, it’s hard not to view other efforts that would disproportionately impact women through that same lens of attack. So when labor statistics suggest that moves to weaken unions at the state and local level would impact women more than men, it’s tough not to judge Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-Wis.) apparent union-busting crusade as anything other than the latest swipe at American women.”
Walker and his fellow Republicans claim their goal is to get the budget under control. Like many states, Wisconsin faces a huge deficit. Critics say the budget is just an excuse to do something Republicans have always wanted to do: Bust the unions.
For example, here’s what John Colson, a writer for The Aspen Times, had to say: Walker “could balance his budget by not promising lavish corporate incentives for companies to come and pillage Wisconsin’s natural resources, or by raising the taxes those corporations pay, or any number of other fiscal moves. But killing unions is part of his game strategy, which includes keeping the working class on the edge of ruin at all times.”
Colson has a point. After all, the public unions agreed to shoulder more of the financial burden, accepting pay cuts and agreeing to pay more for insurance and pensions. But Walker wouldn’t go along. Gutting the unions’ collective bargaining rights is essential to his plan.
Where do you stand on this issue?
Do you approve or disapprove of what Walker and his fellow Republicans are trying to do?
Is Walker's drive to weaken unions aimed at the working class? Is it an attack on women?
Dr. Wayne E. Baker is a sociologist on the faculty of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Baker blogs daily at Our Values and can be reached at ourvaluesproject@gmail.com.
Comments
Boo Radley
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.
Continued .... since my comment was apparently too long ... Collective bargaining, and in particular, binding arbitration for police and fire came about in the late '60s due to ridiculously low wages and benefits being paid at that time. The increased pay and benefits that came from subsequent arbitration awards enabled government agencies to finally attract better educated and professional workers away from the private sector. In regards to an attack on women ... I do not beieve that is the case any more than going after police and fire jobs for cuts is an attack on men because they still make up the majority of those professions.
clownfish
Fri, Mar 11, 2011 : 4:24 a.m.
Fire and police were exempted from the Wisconsin bill. Not out of concern for Menfolk or fiscal responsibility, but because they endorsed the gov.
Boo Radley
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 4:20 p.m.
It is true that many public sector jobs negotiated very good contracts and benefit packages when times were good, However, as pointed out in the article, many of those same public employee unions were the first to offer and agree to concessions when budgets began to get tight. Government and public workers have given up pay raises, had pay freezes for years, agreed to increased health care contributions for year after year now, furlough days from 5 to 30 days per year without pay, depending on the agency ... etc.
Technojunkie
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.
The unions negotiate lavish, unsustainable benefits with the Democrat politicians that they own and the resulting mess is the Republicans' fault? Seriously? You can't see the massive conflict of interest with public employees collective bargaining with politicians who are dependent on union $millions? Even FDR saw that was a bad idea. Your solution is to simply mug "the rich"? How'd that work in California? The taxpayers of Wisconsin voted for new representatives who actually represent them, not the public sector union mob. The voters who those government workers work for were bound to wake up eventually.
clownfish
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 5:41 p.m.
I am wondering what the difference is between unions donating to politicians and corporations donating to politicians. Both give money and expect results. Why is asking the Johnsons or the Kohlers to pay an extra 3% in income tax "mugging" but having the unions give up 8% of their income is not?
Dog Guy
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 3:21 p.m.
Class warfare? Sex warfare? Too much of a stretch even for a social scientist!
clownfish
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.
Totally disapprove of the plan and methods used by the republicans in Wisconsin. A small group of people have succeeded in getting one segment of the middle class to attack other middle class folks. A quick look at economic demography shows that the money is flowing to a very few people at the very top of the economic scale, but somehow many people are convinced that it is nurses, teachers, garbage men, corrections officers, police and firefighters that are taking all of the cookies. It is truly disgusting that those making over a million/year are unwilling to pay an extra 3% in income tax but will DEMAND that municipal workers take 8% or more in pay cuts.
Boo Radley
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 6:22 p.m.
I always find it odd that when someone writes an opinion piece for AnnArbor.com, there are usually many comments that their opinion doesn't encompass all of the different views of the issue. If it did ... then it wouldn't be their opinion.
DFSmith
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.
Dr Baker- your piece seems to be really partisan, like you were a PR person for Public Unions. As a faculty member, why are you providing such a shallow and partisan analysis of this rather complex situation?