So what else is new? The Washington Post is out with an article today telling lies about Scott Walker. I can't be sure if the reporter did not bother to look into the facts or if the misstatements are intentional. All I know is that there are some straight out misstatements of fact and some rather amazing omissions from the article.
Here is a great example of a misstatement: the Post says that Walker's "2011 law stripped most public-sector unions of their collective-bargaining rights". But it did not. Someone reading just the Post would think that governor Walker and the Wisconsin legislature forced the unions to disband. In truth, the 2011 law did three things of importance regarding public sector unions. First, workers were no longer given health insurance and pensions without their making a contribution to those costs. In the private sector (where wages were lower), essentially every worker contributes to his or her health insurance and retirement. For Wisconsin public union workers, however, health and pension were free until the Walker law. Even after that law was passed, however, the public workers contributed a substantially smaller percentage of the costs of their healthcare and pension than workers in private in industry in the state. Second, state employees were no longer required to pay union dues even if they were not members of the union. Before the law's passage, a worker who did not want to join the union had dues deducted from his or her salary by the state. Wisconsin acted as the collection agency that forced all workers to pay union dues. The law provided that the state would no longer force all workers to pay union dues. Workers who did not want to be members of the union could keep their own money and not pay dues. Third, for some public employees, the issues of health insurance and pensions were taken out of collective bargaining. The state did not want local governments to give up the new policy of requiring a worker contribution to health and retirement costs. The state also did not want the unions to force local governments to buy health insurance from the union owned company that provided coverage at a much higher cost than private competitors.
Nothing in the law stripped unions of their collective bargaining rights. Wages, the most important part of any contract, are still subject to collective bargaining. Work rules are also subject to collective bargaining. Benefits other than health insurance and pensions are subject to collective bargaining. The Post is wrong.
The Post's article goes on at length about the decline in union membership, but it carefully omits the reason for that decline. Simply put, state employees were no longer required by the state to pay union dues. A majority of public workers in Wisconsin saw no benefit to being union members and so they left. This was individual choice by the employees. They have the right to be members, but they chose not to do so. It's called freedom. No wonder the Washington Post does not mention it.
I know that Scott Walker is the flavor of the month among GOP presidential contenders. Nevertheless, if the WaPo is going to write about Walker, it ought to at least be honest.
Here is a great example of a misstatement: the Post says that Walker's "2011 law stripped most public-sector unions of their collective-bargaining rights". But it did not. Someone reading just the Post would think that governor Walker and the Wisconsin legislature forced the unions to disband. In truth, the 2011 law did three things of importance regarding public sector unions. First, workers were no longer given health insurance and pensions without their making a contribution to those costs. In the private sector (where wages were lower), essentially every worker contributes to his or her health insurance and retirement. For Wisconsin public union workers, however, health and pension were free until the Walker law. Even after that law was passed, however, the public workers contributed a substantially smaller percentage of the costs of their healthcare and pension than workers in private in industry in the state. Second, state employees were no longer required to pay union dues even if they were not members of the union. Before the law's passage, a worker who did not want to join the union had dues deducted from his or her salary by the state. Wisconsin acted as the collection agency that forced all workers to pay union dues. The law provided that the state would no longer force all workers to pay union dues. Workers who did not want to be members of the union could keep their own money and not pay dues. Third, for some public employees, the issues of health insurance and pensions were taken out of collective bargaining. The state did not want local governments to give up the new policy of requiring a worker contribution to health and retirement costs. The state also did not want the unions to force local governments to buy health insurance from the union owned company that provided coverage at a much higher cost than private competitors.
Nothing in the law stripped unions of their collective bargaining rights. Wages, the most important part of any contract, are still subject to collective bargaining. Work rules are also subject to collective bargaining. Benefits other than health insurance and pensions are subject to collective bargaining. The Post is wrong.
The Post's article goes on at length about the decline in union membership, but it carefully omits the reason for that decline. Simply put, state employees were no longer required by the state to pay union dues. A majority of public workers in Wisconsin saw no benefit to being union members and so they left. This was individual choice by the employees. They have the right to be members, but they chose not to do so. It's called freedom. No wonder the Washington Post does not mention it.
I know that Scott Walker is the flavor of the month among GOP presidential contenders. Nevertheless, if the WaPo is going to write about Walker, it ought to at least be honest.
No comments:
Post a Comment