Last February, Gov. Scott Walker proposed a budget bill that included massive cuts for state employees, prompting massive demonstrations in Madison. The most controversial provisions in the legislation eliminated collective bargaining rights for the unions representing state employees and also forced them to pay much more for health care benefits. Most state employees eventually conceded paying more for health care benefits is not entirely unfair, but the stripping of collective bargaining rights was seen simply as a way for the governor to consolidate power over the unions.
The alleged impetus for cutting the bargaining rights of the unions, according to Walker, was to balance the budget. Interestingly though, firefighters and police officers were exempt from the changes regarding collective bargaining rights, despite the fact that they are a large contingency of state employees. It seems clear enough Walker could have employed less divisive means toward balancing the budget, but obviously exempting certain state employees would only lead to complaints of unfairness from the others.
Walker claims excluding firefighters and police officers from the collective bargaining rights arrangement was necessary in order to ensure public safety in case of unrest resulting from the new changes. Curiously, this indicates Walker rightly anticipated the legislation would be controversial, even though he believed no one should be surprised by it.
It’s intriguing Walker does not even try to offer an alternative explanation for why firefighters and police officers were exempt. He does not even try to make the case they need not be included because it would not help balance the budget, even though this is his stated objective. He also does not try to make the case that firefighters and police officers deserve greater benefits because the work they do is more difficult or more important. Walker simply stated firefighters and police officers were excluded because it is imperative they do not strike during a time of public unrest as a consequence of the cuts.
In other words, it was a compromise. The governor was willing to compromise when it allowed him to achieve his objective. Yet he would not compromise his principles when it came to allowing state employees to keep their health care benefits and collective bargaining rights, because they should have no greater benefits or rights than private sector employee. This raises the question of what exactly Walker’s goal is.
We can debate whether Walker’s budget bill was necessary, prudent or simply destructive, but there can be no doubt about the fairness of creating two classes of state employees. It’s absolutely unfair firefighters and police officers should get to keep the same benefits and rights which other state employees are deprived of, simply because of their usefulness in implementing Walker’s policies.
I have spoken to many people from different parts of Wisconsin, and there certainly is no consensus regarding whether Walker’s legislation is fair. Some of the people I’ve spoken with, including state employees, think that it is perfectly reasonable. Others, willing to brave the bitter Wisconsin winter gathered at the Capitol to show they do not support the legislation. Personally, I find the cuts unfair, but in the words of Gerald Ford, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
I think most Wisconsinites would be ready and willing to have a respectful debate over what the best way to balance the budget is, but dividing people, especially in this way, is not the best solution. The only reason the firefighters and police get to keep their rights and benefits while no other state employees do is because they hold the guns. And hoses, but guns are more dramatic, so let’s stick with that. Walker needs them because without their support, he can’t do much. But that doesn’t necessarily make them more deserving.
Ryan Plesh ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in philosophy and physics.
