Should Virginians support Wisconsin Goveror Scott Walker or the government union workers in the standoff in Madison? As an ardent free market capitalist, I know I should back Governor Walker, however as a fiercely loyal Virginian, I hestiate, just a little.
While Virginia legislators can pat themselves on the back for the comparitively competitive state of the Virginia economy, the reality is that as the northern-most right to work state in the Union combined with anti-tax executive leadership from Governors Wilder, Allen, and Gilmore that mitigated profligate general assembly spending, Virginia's economy has grown sharply in boom times while weathering recessions better than most states and certainly better than all of our union-based bretheren to the north. So, while my free market instincts suggest that I should fully support Governor Walker and his attempts to reign in budget-busting union costs and benefits, I pause when I think that Virginia's future economic success might be less assured if Wisconsin and other union states emancipate themselves from the shackles of union servitude. While I know that Governors Walker, Christie, and Daniels are on the right side of the issue, the loyal Virginian in me recognizes the local value in the success of the unionized government workers and the transient mercinary protesters throwing a 50,000 strong temper tantrum.
The reality is, the situation is a win-win for Virginia. If Governor Walker prevails, it is a triumph for the free market. Virginia and other right to work states will have to up the ante to create an even better business envornment for investment capital that rightly seeks the highest returns with the least risk. If the Union protestors prevail, then Virginia will continue to enjoy a structural market advantage over our neighbors to the north. If Virginia wins either way, I guess we can just sit back and enjoy the show
2 comments:
Who doesn't like a no-lose scenario, especially when it pertains to life in the Old Dominion? I'm not very conversant when it comes to labor issue and labor law, but I do believe that unions serve to protect workers' rights but also hastened the death of our manufacturing economy. Our standard of living is too high to accommodate the labor costs that would keep the jobs here. So, the jobs go overseas and guys that make $45 an hour as unskilled laborers complain that the government isn't taking care of them.
My opinion is that the unions have outlived their usefulness. I think they quit looking after the little guy a long time ago and are taking care of their fat cats at the top and peddling to their political interests. Back in the day when the means of production was centralized in so few hands and labor was scattered a fragile, I think the unions served a noble purpose. But the economy has changed and the unions have not changed with it. It is no coicidence that when BMW, Mercedes, and Toyota made massive investments in US production capacity, the only states in contention were right to work states. Last comment on this...if union dues were not compulsory, I would not have a problem with them. However, where employees have no chouce but support the union with their dues as part of their employment, that's no good. If the value of union membership was so compelling, no one would have to mandate membership and a condition of employment.
Post a Comment