Hear ye, hear ye! Oh Progressives, your patron saint, the man who birthed all your collective babies was against federal bargaining; yep, your very own FDR.
FDR, sage that he was, knew private sector collective bargaining could not transfer to the public sector. If it did, what would make public police and fire, post office and teacher any different than bastard mercenary groups refusing to work unless they got paid what they thought they outta; as Daniel DeSalvo writes:
“Prior to the 1950s, as labor lawyer Ida Klaus remarked in 1965, “the subject of labor relations in public employment could not have meant less to more people, both in and out of government.” To the extent that people thought about it, most politicians, labor leaders, economists, and judges opposed collective bargaining in the public sector. Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: “Meticulous attention,” the president insisted in 1937, “should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” The reason? F.D.R. believed that “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.” Roosevelt was hardly alone in holding these views, even among the champions of organized labor. Indeed, the first president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was “impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
Imagine if you will, the A-Team being in charge of all the Republics vital services. Sure, it might be cool hanging with Mr. T for an episode or two, but before long you run out of your A-Team money and the A-Team moves on. Or, even worse, they don’t move on and instead tell your community to pay “this” amount in order for us to “protect” you or “teach” you or “run your prisons” or “put out your fires” or “deliver mail” “or else.” Compare these selected musings with those of a 1943 New York Supreme Court Judge:
“To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.
Daniel DeSalvo continues:
“The very nature of many public services — such as policing the streets and putting out fires — gives government a monopoly or near monopoly; striking public employees could therefore hold the public hostage. As long-time New York Times labor reporter A. H. Raskin wrote in 1968: “The community cannot tolerate the notion that it is defenseless at the hands of organized workers to whom it has entrusted responsibility for essential services.”
Think about it, prison guards and teachers who threaten, and do, walk off the job. In Iraq, you could pay contractors for personal protection, but you had to pay them what they wanted, how is this any different than what goes on stateside? FDR saw this, why not the modern progressive? Nothing could be more ridiculous indeed…
Who is your Atticus?
