Yesterday Anna Paretskaya presented a report on the political standoff in Madison Wisconsin. This stimulated comments by Michael Corey and Iris, the first generally critical of Paretskaya’s presentation and analysis, the second supportive. This evening, Chad Alan Goldberg, Vice President, United Faculty & Academic Staff (UFAS), AFT 223 and Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison offered his analysis in a reply to that discussion, which I think requires deliberate consideration as a post of its own. -Jeff
1. Dr. Corey suggests that Anna Paretskaya’s account of events here in Wisconsin is insufficiently objective and lacks a “suspension of belief.” To be sure, knowledge of the social world is always socially situated. Those of us with backgrounds in the labor movement–those of us who are public employees, like Anna and myself, whose collective bargaining rights are now threatened in Wisconsin–are indeed likely to see things differently than someone, like Dr. Corey, with a background in corporate management. However, the tradition of critical theory suggests the possibility of another kind of relationship between the observer and the events she observes. As Max Horkheimer put it, “If … the theoretician and his specific object are seen as forming a dynamic unity with the oppressed class, so that his presentation of societal contradictions is not merely an expression of the concrete historical situation but also a force within it to stimulate change, then his real function emerges…. His profession is the struggle of which his own thinking is a part.”
2. Much of Dr. Corey’s comment lays out the differing claims of the social and political actors in Wisconsin in a “he said, she said” manner without making any real attempt to investigate the substance of those claims. As social scientists, we are interested in facts. And the facts are on the side of the tens of thousands of protesters gathering day after day at the Wisconsin state capitol.
a. Corporate-funded right-wing propagandists insist that public employees are a new privileged class which taxpayers can’t afford. However, as the Wisconsin State Journal reported, a new study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that public employees make less than private workers, when one controls for education and examines total compensation.
b. The fiscal crisis which Governor Walker and Wisconsin Republicans are using as a pretext to eliminate collective bargaining rights and destroy public-sector unions is largely manufactured. The Capitol Times (a Wisconsin newspaper) recently reported: “To the extent that there is an imbalance — Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit — it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January.”
c. Walker’s push for more tax breaks for corporations is further evidence that he’s not interested in balancing the budget. At a time when Wisconsin has a budget shortfall of $137 million, Governor Walker signed a law lavishing $117 million in tax breaks on corporations. As the Wisconsin State Journal reported, these corporate tax breaks will “only deepen the state’s fiscal woes.” Apparently, Wisconsin can afford big tax giveaways to corporations which add to the state’s budget deficit, but not social spending for education, health care, etc. Or, to put it differently, Wisconsin’s current Republican leadership wants to pay for corporate tax breaks with draconian cuts to education (tuition at my university would need to rise by 26% over two years to compensate), health care, and so. This is income redistribution in the wrong direction.
d. On Friday, Feb. 18, Wisconsin’s state and local public employees offered to accept all economic concessions called for in Governor Walker’s budget bill – including Governor Walker’s pension and health care concessions that he says are needed to solve the state budget challenge. With economic issues off the table, it is clear that the only rationale for Republicans continuing to push the governor’s budget bill is to cripple public-sector unions and eliminate public employees’ collective bargaining rights.
In sum, this conflict is not primarily about money, as Dr. Corey and much of the media suggest. It is about the right of teachers, nurses, and other public employees to have a voice in the workplace.
3. Dr. Corey says that “a fundamental question by many supporters of private sector unions is whether or not public sector unions are a good idea.” I was struck by the resounding answer given to this question by the large numbers of private-sector trade unionists who came to the Wisconsin state capitol this week to show their solidarity with public-sector employees. I saw them and met them first-hand. They understand that the anti-labor and pro-corporate right wing, having decimated unions in the private sector (where only 6.9% of workers belong to unions), is now going after public-sector unions (where 36% of workers belong to unions). The right-wing agenda is clearly to destroy what remains of the labor movement in this country.
4. Regarding democracy:
a. Dr. Corey has a narrow and anemic conception of democracy. He is concerned about public employees calling in sick to demonstrate (a “sick out”) and Wisconsin Senate Democrats leaving the state to force Republicans to negotiate. A far more robust conception of democracy can be found in the chapters in Cohen and Arato’s Civil Society and Political Theory on social movements and civil disobedience.
b. The principle threat to democracy in Wisconsin does not come from union members or Democrats. It comes from the governor’s radical and extremist assault on the civil rights of public workers–rights which some public workers have exercised for half a century–to collectively bargain. I quote from a statement signed by hundreds of University of Wisconsin faculty, including myself:
“As scholars, teachers and citizens, we recognize that the right to form unions and bargain collectively has been essential to the establishment and enrichment of democracy in Wisconsin, in the United States and around the world. The International Labor Organization, which the United States joined in 1934, states that ‘the right of workers and employers to form and join organizations of their own choosing is an integral part of a free and open society’ and includes collective bargaining rights among the four ‘fundamental principles and rights at work.’ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States endorsed in 1948, states that all workers have the ‘right to form and to join trade unions for the protection’ of their interests. Since 1935, it has been federal policy in the United States to ‘encourage collective bargaining’ as a tool for avoiding labor conflict and improving wages and working conditions in private industry. The state of Wisconsin led the way in extending those principles to the public sector, adopting a 1959 law stating that public employees, elected officials and the public itself all have an interest in ‘industrial peace, regular and adequate income for the employee, and uninterrupted production of goods and services.’ Toward that end, the law affirmed that ‘an employee has the right, if the employee desires, to associate with others in organizing and bargaining collectively through representatives of the employee’s own choosing, without intimidation or coercion from any source.’ We are concerned, therefore, about the Governor’s proposal to deprive public employees of the right to bargain collectively in Wisconsin.”
c. The assault on public-sector unions in Wisconsin and other states is an attack on democracy for another reason too. As Rachel Maddow reported:
“In 2010, post Citizens United, 7 of the 10 top spending groups [groups that spent the most money on elections] were all right wing…. The only non-conservative groups that cracked the top ten were the public employees union, the SEIU, and the teachers union. That’s it. Unions are the only competition Republicans have in electoral politics…. Without unions, essentially all of the big money in politics would be right-wing money.”
Perhaps a veteran at one of the mass rallies in the Wisconsin state capitol this week put it best: he said he had not fought for democratic rights overseas to have Governor Scott Walker take away his rights at home.
Friends and colleagues, at a time of crisis in Wisconsin and other states, maybe we all need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: Which side are you on?
Well said, Professor Goldberg. I think the narrow definition of Democracy has been a problematic thread through conservative discourse for years. When I see comments that imply that because Walker was “democratically elected,” we have exercised all of our rights, I am reminded of George W. Bush’s mistaken assumption that giving Iraquis the vote would automatically turn the country into a Democracy. Similarly, worker rights are not limited to the right to negotiate wages. They involve working conditions – and in the case of public sector workers, this mean protecting consumers. Nursing unions are the only reasons that hospital wards are not less understaffed than they are, likewise for teachers and class size. Dr. Corey’s comments reduce both sets of rights, and the very concept of democracy to their lowest common denominator. Alexis de Tocqueville is spinning in his grave.
I’m pleased that Professor Goldberg took the time to respond to my brief comments, although I beg to differ on some of his interpretations of my remarks. My original point to Anna was simple: there is a tension between been a participant and an observer. I also thought that fairness considerations might be the problem rather than threats to democratic processes.
At times like this, there is an opportunity to shift from being a participant towards being an observer to capture understandings that might otherwise be lost. Bourdieu suggested the use of “participant objectification” to avoid the contradictions he saw in the concept of “participant observation.” The distancing he suggests is ironic in the sense that it distances us from what may have initially attracted us. Bourdieu cautions that the improper objectification of the “truth of the objectifying” may result in an unwanted projection. Habermas explains that there is a fundamental difference between the way an interpreter approaches understanding symbolic expressions, and the coordinated interactions used by participants to reach understandings. The situation in Wisconsin is a fantastic opportunity for someone to do research, especially as a participant observer.
Professor Goldberg objected to my pointing out that different views on the situation in Wisconsin exist without an attempt by me to investigate the substance of the claims. I am aware of the claims made by all sides, and I did not opine on which claims appear to be factually correct.
Understanding and the explaining the processes that are taking place are sociologically important in my opinion. I would like to see someone address them. Professor Goldberg offered his interpretation and explanation for what is transpiring: in summary, propaganda from right-wing propagandists; giveaways to special interest groups; income redistribution in the wrong direction; and a desire by Republicans to cripple public sector unions. Perhaps Professor Goldberg is right. Are there other credible interpretations and explanations? If so, what are they, and how can legitimate differences be bridged?
I suggested that there appear to be people who are concerned about public sector unions, including people who are supportive of private unions. This is not a new issue. Many of these concerns were raised by Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 16, 1937 in his letter to letter to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15445).
I’m somewhat surprised that Professor Goldberg perceives that our differences are due to my background in corporate management as opposed to legitimate concerns about theory, research, and conflict resolution. I grew up in a union family (my mother was a garment worker and my father was an electrician); and during my business career, I have been in leader in developing participative management; and empowering employees through team concepts, work redesign approaches and alternative compensation systems in both union and non-union facilities. I found it ironic that it was much more difficult to empower employees in union facilities. I also established a process whereby union and other employee representatives attended operating and strategic planning sessions with their facility managers; and corporate management including the Chairman and CEO, President; Executive Vice Presidents; and others. This was a remarkable achievement in terms of developing mutual understandings and respect.
Professor Goldberg seems to think that my conception of democracy is narrow and anemic. Based upon my remarks, I’m not sure how Professor Goldberg can know what my conception of democracy is. I mentioned that Wisconsin’s government was elected and appears to be functioning legally. I mentioned that people on all sides of the issues have the right to demonstrate, and posters can be an effective tool. I also noted that questions have been raised about: state employees calling in sick to demonstrate; some signs which were used during rallies which are inconsistent with President Obama’s call for civility; and the complexities caused by Democratic and independent Senators hiding in another state to prevent deliberations and a vote. Are any of these observations incorrect?
Professor Goldberg concludes by citing a veteran’s comment which was made at one of the rallies, and asking for support for his advocacy position. I concluded my informal remarks by asking, “Is withdrawing from deliberations on a bill consistent with democratic processes?” I think that Professor Goldberg answered that it is. I’m not so sure.
What is happening in Wisconsin is not an isolated case. Variations of it are happening or will happen in other states and in Washington. It is important that we understand what is happening.
Again, a very interesting post and discussion. I also felt that Michael Corey sounded dismissive of Anna Paretskaya, because she was a participant as well as an observer. Michael explains himself a bit better today in that regard. He is also defending himself from being labeled as anti-union. His case is weaker when it comes to chastising the absent Democratic legislators. In trying to be brief yesterday, I made an assumption that people would know that being present in this case means certain defeat for collective bargaining rights, because Governor Walker is refusing to deliberate, just the opposite of what Michael Corey says should happen.
Yesterday I wrote about the irony of Walker and Christie turning down money for rail or rail related construction, again citing the “BROKE” mantra. I could have named more pound-foolish governors, because there a many. I’d like to point to a NY Times editorial in today’s paper, which addresses this. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21mon2.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Also in trying to be brief, I cut out a final paragraph I had written about another great irony. Paul Krugman, also in today’s Times, said it a whole lot better than I ever could. Referring to the dismantling of unions, public or private (noting that public is almost all that’s left), and the detriment to democracy that’s causing, he writes,”There’s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21krugman.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
Finally, yesterday I mistakenly thought that firefighters were being given the same treatment as the teachers union by Governor Walker. Apparently they are being spared their bargaining rights, but that’s also ironic, since perhaps what makes them special is that they tended to vote for him. However, I did notice that firefighters are marching along with the teachers, so perhaps Walker won’t be able to count on their votes in the future.
One thing that has been mentioned, is that the governor of Wisconsin recently made $140 million in tax cuts, thus creating the current budget shortful of $137 million. This is a fact. The details of the tax cuts can be found in a report done by the Wisconsin Joint Committee on finance: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf
However, I haven’t heard anyone explain how the budget shortage can go from the current $137 million to $3.6 billion in two years; that is an enormous increase in the deficit and I have yet to hear anyone say exactly what accounts for such a huge number.
The information I could find on how much the cuts to worker’s pensions go to reducing the deficit is $300 million over the next two years:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-bc-us–wisconsinbudget-glance,0,1842309.story
Obviously, the proposed cuts don’t balance the budget. Furthermore, the state worker’s have actually agreed to the cuts. Therefore, by examing what facts I could gather, I can’t conclude that the main issue is really balancing the budget. As far as that’s concerned, the numbers just don’t add up. It appears that the issue really being contested is collective bargaining rights for workers.
[…] the political conflict over labor rights in Madison, Wisconsin, in reports by Anna Paretskaya and Chad Goldberg. One of the most important issues in the upcoming elections will revolve around this […]