Here in Washington State, we're in the process of completing yet another legislative session without even beginning to address the 8000 pound gurella in the room: unfunded retirements for public employee unions. Courage is a rare commodity up there generally, and dem cowardice when it comes to adderessing the union extortion we have to live with is palpable.
We all remember the fringe left anarchists throwing a fit over Gov. Scott Walker's plan to return fiscal sanity to Wisconsin. It wasn't that long ago that Wisconsin Senate democrats acted like cowards, and their moronic union buddies acted like thugs in ways that Hitler would have envied.
So... why the silence by the left about the Soviet Socialist Republic of Massachusetts for doing the same thing?
Could it be because the democrats have a huge majority in the Massachusetts House have a HUGE advantage in numbers? Was it a struggle for democrats... considering they have to labor under a paltry 98 seat majority and this bill passed 111 to 42? (128 to 31 dem to Rep.)
House votes to restrict unions
Measure would curb bargaining on health care
 | Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, said the union would fight the legislation “to the bitter end.”(M. McDonald for The Boston Globe) |
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.
The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.
.
Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.
.
.
“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’
.
.
“We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end,’’ he added. “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.’’
.
.
The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.
.
.
DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.
.
.
“By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,’’ he said in a statement.
.
.
Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.
.
.
The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.
.
.
The second concession gives union members 20 percent of the savings from any health care changes for one year, if the unions object to changes imposed by local officials. The original bill gave the unions 10 percent of the savings for one year. Continued...
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment