Tuesday, October 13, 2009

State Contract

I am not a member of the state employees’ union. I was years ago, when it was a local affair and not affiliated with SEIU (via AFSCME), because I am not opposed to the idea of unions per se, just the current incarnation of many American unions. I haven’t followed the negotiations with the State of NH, and I don’t know the details of what was proposed about furloughs versus layoffs. Thus, I may be leaping to unwarranted conclusions. But I find it ironic that all these good government union Democrats, who vote for people who want to “spread the wealth” and just voted for a president who specifically said that to a plumber, voted that a few be laid off rather than everyone have furlough days. It has a sort of penguin near the water feel to it. That we selfish conservatives and libertarians, rapaciously out for our own good rather than general beneficence, would take such a position is hardly surprising. I thought progressives were kinder and gentler than that.


karrde said...


There was (and still is, I think) a similar discussion going on between unions and the mayor of the largest city in my home State.

The union (leaders, and I think most members) voted not to accept lower wages. In effect, they voted that the lowest-seniority union members would face layoffs.

The City is on the verge of bankruptcy (I think the process is called "receivership" when referring to subordinate governments, rather than corporations...but that's a small detail).

It's sad and predictable that the union organization seems to look out for those most powerful in the union, rather than the least powerful that it ostensibly is designed to protect.

Retriever said...

Same where I am w seniority driving all. I think furloughs for all wd be fairer and I wd give up some pay to assure my less senior peers their jobs.