Midwest union battle a political power pull
LOS ANGELES - The labor fight blazing in Madison, Wis., and other state capitals is more than a feud over budgets or the rights of government employees. It is a battle that could fundamentally change the practice of politics in this country, with...
LOS ANGELES - The labor fight blazing in Madison, Wis., and other state capitals is more than a feud over budgets or the rights of government employees. It is a battle that could fundamentally change the practice of politics in this country, with enormous consequences in 2012 and beyond.
By striking at organized labor, a pugnacious group of Republican governors is hitting at the heart of the Democratic Party, which banks heavily on union money and manpower. That explains the resistance from the White House, Democrats in Congress and, most fiercely, their liberal allies from New York to California.
"This is all about pure political power," said Paul Maslin, a party strategist whose office is just a block from Wisconsin's Capitol. "If they break the unions here, it will spread state by state, nationwide."
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed deep cuts in benefits for most state workers, saying the belt-tightening is necessary to help close a projected
$3.6 billion deficit. Labor unions have agreed to cuts in retirement and health care plans; if givebacks were the only issue, the impasse would presumably have ended by now.
But Walker, a newly elected Republican, has gone further by seeking to strip state employees of most of their collective bargaining rights. He would also make it harder for unions to organize state workers and collect dues, moves that could diminish labor's clout and deplete its coffers, ultimately hurting Democrats who lean on that support.
Republican governors in Ohio and elsewhere are eyeing similar moves, in what amounts to the greatest threat to organized labor since President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in the early 1980s.
Walker and his allies see the moves as a necessary corrective after years of generous contracts that have grown economically unsustainable.
"It's not about busting unions, but going back to elementary, high school math," said Phil Musser, a GOP consultant and former director of the Republican Governors Association. "You have (government workers) essentially enjoying an outmoded set of benefits that have no bearing on the macroeconomic situation, either in the states or nationally."
But Democrats see something more insidious: an attempt to undermine the party and its candidates by toppling one of its financial pillars. It is all the more alarming, they say, after last year's landmark Supreme Court decision freeing corporations, which heavily support the GOP, to make unlimited campaign contributions. (The decision also loosened rules on spending by unions, but their assets are far outweighed by those of corporations.)
"It's very simple. Wealthy individuals and corporations can still give six-, seven-, eight-figure checks to all the candidates, state parties and causes they want to," said Michael Fraioli, a Democratic strategist who works closely with organized labor. "If you take away unions and their ability to organize ... you cut at the heart of our financial support."
Republicans, fueled by the fervency of the budget-cutting "tea party" movement, made big gains in November, seizing control of the House, winning a majority of governorships and fortifying their ranks in state legislatures. They see their victory as a mandate to shrink the size and scope of government, including the number of state and federal workers.
The Midwest has become a focal point of that effort for good reason.
No region of the country has suffered a more devastating loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs or private-sector union positions, which makes the ranks of unionized government employees - with their job security, health care and guaranteed pensions - a source of resentment.