French Foreign
Minister Pierre Laval was impertinent enough to suggest to Josef
Stalin in 1935 that he should encourage Catholicism in the Soviet Union in
order to appease the Pope. Stalin responded, “The Pope? How many divisions has
he got?”
He hadn’t enough,
apparently.
If in the unlikely
event Governor Dannel Malloy should demand of public employee unions “shared
sacrifices” they are unwilling to embrace, the question no doubt will be asked,
“How many divisions has Malloy?”
He will not have
enough.
Frustration with the
Malloy-Sharkey-Looney budget is beginning to mount. That simmering frustration
peaks out of the first line of a recent New London Day editorial: “Connecticut can't keep going on like this.”
Gubernatorial
leadership, The Day notes in its editorial, “was notably lacking this
time, at least on budgetary matters. Gov. Malloy, boxed in by his promise of no
tax increase, handed the legislature a budget with huge cuts in social service
programs that he knew it would never accept, but which freed him of initiating
the tax increase. He took a hands-off approach until the closing days of the
session. Only when the business community loudly objected to the big tax hike
that hit them, did the governor utilize some political muscle, pushing
lawmakers to trim $178 million from the $1.5 billion in tax hikes.”
Massive pension
obligations, The Day asserts, are crowding out other needs. And the paper then
administers a blow to the solar plexus of progressives in the state:
“Major, structural changes are necessary, such as regional services to
eliminate rampant redundancy in municipal government in Connecticut;
rebalancing negotiation rules that now tip in favor of labor; moving new state
hires into 401(k)-type savings plans; and contracting for most social services
through nonprofits rather than high-cost government agencies.”
For Mr. Malloy, this
is forbidding territory. At the annual Jefferson, Jackson, Bailey Democratic Party
fundraising dinner, Mr. Malloy threw his arms around state union members in
attendance and fairly slobbered, “Other
states are demonizing the men and women in labor. We are seeing a wholesale
attack on labor." The Democratic Party and organized labor, the
governor reassured state employee union members, “are bound to each other,” possibly
in a fatal embrace, and it is this perception that makes Friends of Free
Enterprise (FFE) in Connecticut a wee bit anxious.
The age-old relationship between unions and the Democratic Party, the
governor reminded the celebrants, had in the past produced benefits enjoyed by
all: child labor laws, equality for women in the workplace, minimum wage
salaries. “I understand the tremendous sacrifices we are asking of people, from
having to pay more in taxes to giving away benefits won at the negotiating
table. But we will build a new economy in Connecticut." The “new
economy” is the purist of utopian fantasies: It is not possible to invent new
primary colors.
Mr. Malloy seems incapable of making a distinction between unionized
public employee and unionized workers that do not draw their salaries from the
public purse. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, no enemy to unions, had no difficulty
making the distinction in a now often quoted 1937 letter to Luther C.Steward,
then president of the National Federation of Federal Employees:
"All Government employees should realize that the process of
collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the
public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied
to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make
it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the
employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by
means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly,
administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in
many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or
rules in personnel matters."
Let’s suppose Mr. Malloy were to “go Roosevelt” on the question of
collective bargaining. Or more pragmatically, let’s suppose Mr. Malloy were to
incorporate into his union negotiations tool box some measures that have been
deployed successfully by other governors to reassert the democratic principal that
informs Mr. Roosevelt’s letter: namely, that government, state and national,
acting in the interests of “the whole people” should not surrender its constitutional
prerogatives to state or national employee unions.
What then? What “divisions” could Mr. Malloy rely upon to support measures that would shift the balance of political power from state employee unions back to “the whole people?” Suppose Mr. Malloy wished to eliminate one tier of the state’s three tier retirement platform, retirement after ten years of state service -- a springboard that allows politicians retired from office through elections to leap into state service for the remainder of a ten year span, a ploy that permits politicians favored by the administration in power to collect lifetime pensions. Or suppose Mr. Malloy would wish to avail himself of a “claw-back” provision that would allow him to adjust contracts unilaterally in accordance with sudden and unforeseen budget dips. If Mr. Malloy seriously wished to regain control of the spending side of the state budget – as recommended by The Day and others -- what political divisions could he rely upon to snatch democracy from the jaws of state employee unions?
Mr. Malloy has alienated Republicans by crowding them out of budget
negotiations; he has thrown in his lot with progressives in the General
Assembly, thereby alienating pragmatic independents and the tattered moderate
Democratic remnant; and he is a union man, from head to toe.
Without political divisions to support necessary spending reform, all
of us must get used to the notion that Connecticut can and will “keep going on like
this” -- however frustrating the ongoing
destruction of Connecticut might be.
Comments