Over a month ago, I wrote a first take on the politics of cuts to state shared revenue. See, Cuts to State Shared Revenue: Whitewater’s Politics of It All (First Take).
Much has happened since then.
Of the school district, I noted previously that
There are so many better and higher tasks than labor disputes, but neither the leadership of the district (administrator and board) nor the faculty (union leaders and other teachers) may have the chance to pursue them. Cuts will likely preoccupy the district, and leadership and negotiation will require more tactical skill than vision.
Neither teachers nor administration seem ready for protracted conflict, and they may be so unready that they prove unwilling, and changes come without much fuss.
One can guess that there was fuss, stress, and tension to produce an extended contract for teachers and other employees, but it was the right thing to do. Hard, but right.
Preservation of collectively bargained rights, at least for two more years, was a good decision. These rights should never have been taken away, as an imposition on communities who never asked for this anti-association measure.
Note that those who talk about budgets, rather than limited government, don’t see rights of association as meaningful. For them, it’s simply about balancing a budget, and if unions have to go, then unions have to go.
The right thing isn’t budget repair, but limited government; the right thing isn’t fewer freedoms, but more.
Liberty begets prosperity.
Conditions of liberty permit freedom of association for all workers, public or private.
As for estimates of whether these concessions are enough, I cannot say. It’s worth noting that on a recent swing through northern Wisconsin, Gov. Walker began to hint that if his projections proved wrong, then workers should simply give more. (So much for his earlier, professed certainty that his projections would be enough.)
Status quo incumbents will try to have things both ways — in favor of both Walker’s restrictions on collective bargaining and the extension of these contacts. One can argue for both, but only dishonestly. Gov. Walker doesn’t want contacts extended, and he’s said so more than once.
So, pick one: with Walker, and against the extension of collectively-bargained contracts, or with the extension of contracts as a preservation of freedom of association (and against Walker’s statewide meddling with local matters).
New contracts were the right choice, as they preserve bargained contractual rights, and assure workers more freedom than this governor is willing to permit otherwise. That they involved cuts in compensation was inevitable in these tight times. Workers can – and will – make concessions without the necessity of losing their bargaining rights.
Communities should have come to these decisions without being forced to do so from the state administration.
Incumbents who contend they need the governor’s ‘budget repair’ legislation should admit that they have been incompetently managing employee negotiations previously.
Those who have been managing well don’t need Walker’s professed help; those who have been managing poorly deserve no more authority than the power they now possess.
One wouldn’t give a drunk more alcohol, and incumbents who have misused their existing authority don’t need even more from Gov. Walker.