60% Of Americans Support Wisconsin Unions. Hooey!

Shown is a pro-union demonstrator at one of the massive "spontaneous" protests against reining in union excess and government spending. Clearly, she is a product of unionized public schools. A sixth-grader shouldn't be making a grammatical/spelling error like that. In attempting to satirize the Tea Party, she has instead merely demonstrated her own ignorance.

But after all, she represents a large majority of Americans, right? How many of you saw even Fox News repeating the poll that showed that 60% of Americans supported the unions, and became depressed? Raise your hands. Now, how many of you thought that sounded just a little hinky? Raise your hands. Now, how many of you saw and heard that figure, and yelled "bulls--t?" Raise your hands. You in the last batch win.

The poll came from the New York Times and CBS News. It was what we refer to affectionately as a "push poll." In the law, we call it a leading question. The question is phrased so as to produce the answer that is implied by the question. The results of the poll were announced in bold type, but you had to get to page 18 of The Times to find the question that was actually asked. "Collective bargaining refers to negotiations between an employer and a labor union's members to determine the conditions of employment. Some states are trying to take away some of the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions. Do you favor or oppose taking away some of the collective bargaining right."

Let's deal with that for a moment. Collective bargaining "rights" for public employees? What rights? From FDR to Obama, no such right has been recognized at the federal level, and Jimmy Carter took away what few privileges they previously had. Congress proposed, and the Supreme Court upheld, the right of private sector employees to unionize voluntarily and bargain collectively. But the legislative, executive and judicial branches all expressed serious reservations about the concept of public employees ever having collective bargaining privileges.

Even JFK, who allowed federal employees by executive order to unionize as payback for the union support that put him over the top in 1960, still imposed restrictions on just how far the unions could go. Jimmy Carter felt JFK had gone too far, and cut back most of the few perks JFK had allowed them. But the Supreme Court left open the ability of states themselves to determine independently whether they would allow public employee unions or not. So much for this being a "right." Moreover, what the state can grant, the state can take away. And so it is in Wisconsin (and more than a handful of other states trying to undo the curse of unionism in the public sector).

Half-truths are still lies, and the Times question is so lacking in history, law, and precedent as to be at best a half truth. Unions and other leftists constantly harp on "collective bargaining rights" while utterly failing to distinguish between public employee unions and private sector unions, let alone the fact that nearly half the states already have right-to-work laws that prohibit public employee unions. The question also says "labor union members" negotiating. Now who really believes that? Many major unions have memberships that are 40% to 45% opposed to unions, the negotiations are conducted by union bosses and union lawyers not "members," and 95% of workers in union environments are forced to join the union if they want a job.

Furthermore, the poll doesn't point out that unlike private sector management/labor negotiations, public sector unions play a major part in electing the very people they will be negotiating with. If the "boss" owes his job to his "employees," most people would see that as a clear conflict of interest. Moreover, in the private sector, a union wildcat strike or work stoppage will affect only a small portion of the public or the economy. A similar action by public employees used to bludgeon elected representatives into granting them privileges they aren't entitled to affects the entire public and the ability of the government to function properly.

A negotiation (collective bargaining) requires two opposing sides trying to find a common solution. But in states where Democrats are in the majority, there is only one side negotiating with itself. The people of Wisconsin, a very liberal progressive state, just elected a governor and legislature which are not in the pocket of the unions, and that provoked the ire of previously-safe union deadwood and union boss dictators.

So what if the question had been prefaced this way?:

1. Your state is broke and about to go into bankruptcy.
2. The single largest contributor to this crisis is public employee union pay scales, benefits, and pensions.
3. Public employee unions are allowed, but have no constitutional right to existence beyond what the state gives or takes away.
4. Public employees are paid at higher rates with fewer deductions than those doing comparable work in union shops in the private sector, and vastly more than those in private businesses which are not unionized.
5. Nearly 55% of forced union dues go to political campaigns, and 90% of that money goes to supporting Democratic candidates.
6. The public employee unions object to paying anything for their own benefits and pensions, even though they were recently given across-the-boards pay raises that are greater than the amount of the contributions the state has been asking them to pay.
7. If the public employees don't get their way, they threaten to shut down the very government you just elected.
8. You are paying the public employees to have pay rates, benefits, and pensions that you will never, never be able to obtain yourself.
9. Public employees are already protected by strict civil service laws, and teachers have that plus tenure.
10. If the unions win, and the state has to start laying off public employees for lack of money to pay them, the union rule of seniority will apply. Those who have been paying union dues the longest will be the last terminated. The newest employees will go first. Consideration of qualifications and success will play no part in who goes and who stays.

QUESTION: Do you support the attempts of your governor and state legislature to bring public employee compensation down to the level of the average employee doing the same tasks in the private sector in order to avoid state bankruptcy?

Framed that way, I'll bet my poll question would get a 60% minimum of "yes" answers. Unfortunately, Commentarama and I are not The New York Times.