Freedom Fighters and Public-Sector Unions

February 25, 2011

2011 Egyptian Protest in Alexandria

What do the people rioting in the Middle East and the people protesting reductions in public-sector union bargaining rights have in common?

Not much, but the driving force behind each of them is similar, and that driving force is economic hardship.

What we are likely seeing is the crumbling of a world economic order that has existed for decades if not for centuries. In the Middle East the order is one of military style-dictators or royal monarchs at the top, often installed and/or maintained by foreign powers.  In the West, the order is one of an unsustainable welfare and public employment system.

One interesting difference is that the protesters in the Middle East really are freedom fighters in that they are fighting to overthrow dictators and a way of life that has oppressed them for decades. In other words, they are seeking to tear down an unsustainable and unjust economic order.

In Wisconsin and other American states, the public-sector unions are seeking to force the government that employs them to restore and maintain union bargaining rights and pay levels. In other words they are seeking to maintain an unsustainable and unjust economic order.

Government employees form unions in order to bargain collectively with government representatives. These unions of government employees are called public-sector unions. The system that allows public-sector unions to organize and bargain collectively is unjust because the public unions exist at the expense of taxpayers who have little or no say in their hiring, firing, or contract negotiating.

The public-sector unions are not the equivalent of private-sector unions at a factory or other place of employment who bargain collectively for better pay and working conditions. Those private employees have no ability or interest in lobbying their employers to constantly increase taxes for their benefit. The system that allows public-sector unions to form and exist is unsustainable because virtually every state is now technically bankrupt, as is the federal government.

In the new budget proposed by President Obama on February 14, 2011, the federal government alone will spend 25.9 percent of America’s GDP or about 26 cents of every GDP dollar.  That is a crushing burden of taxation on the American public which cannot be sustained. Even the relatively modest cuts proposed in Wisconsin are unacceptable to the public unions because their members don’t seem to grasp the fact that the old order is ending one way or the other. The modest cuts are designed to keep the system afloat for a short time and possibly push it ahead to the next administration, but it is going to take drastic changes in the entire system to prevent the catastrophic chaos that appears to be in our future.

The reasoning behind the demands of public-sector unions is failed logic because by definition they are part of the government to which they object. They are, in reality, toadies of the ruling elite. This is not some poor group of under-paid, over-worked union employees in a cotton mill or factory chicken farm that is simply demanding a living wage.  If those in public-sector unions object to government trying to sustain itself without destroying the taxpayers then let them join the private sector where bargaining rights are more solid.

Behind the crises in the Middle East and the crisis in Wisconsin lie the policies of the Federal Reserve.   The Federal Reserve policy that it calls “quantitative easing” is causing the exploding prices of food and other commodities around the world. Flooding the world with dollars, as the Federal Reserve has done, lowers the dollar’s value relative to food and other commodities. When people live on a few dollars a day, if that, a 60 percent increase in the price of food is enough to send them into starvation. This increase in food prices is the driving force behind the Middle East revolution; therefore the Federal Reserve is responsible for it.

How then can the crisis in Wisconsin and the crises in the Middle East be diffused before they spread and take more lives? Unfortunately for the public-sector unions, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has made it clear that bailouts are for banks, not people, and certainly not states.  However, Middle Eastern governments have responded by giving money to what they call lower and middle class people. Saudi Arabia gave $37 billion to the Shiite minority and released some political prisoners.

Middle Eastern people are sacrificing themselves to end an economic and political order that has oppressed them for decades. The public-sector unions are demonstrating in order to maintain an unsustainable economic system so that they might continue their way of life at taxpayer expense. That is the difference.

- Darrell Castle


Burning for Revolution

February 10, 2011

2011 Egyptian protest – by Lihaas

Mohamed Bouazizi was a 26 year old man who lived in a small town in Tunisia called Sidi Bouzid. According to family members, he supported his mother and six sisters with the US$140 per month he earned as a street vendor selling produce from a wheelbarrow-type cart. His dream was to someday buy a van for his produce and allow his sisters to go to university.

Bouazizi did not have a license to sell from his cart, although the local police say that no license was needed. His sisters said that the police often harassed him and destroyed his produce because he could not or would not pay their bribes. His sisters accused the police of trying to extort money from him.  On December 17, 2010, he contracted US$200 in debt to buy his merchandise to sell. He was then publicly humiliated when F. Hamdi, a 45 year old female official, slapped him in the face, spat at him, threw out his produce and confiscated his scales. The fact that she was female made the humiliation worse due to the customs and traditions under which he lived.

He appealed to the governor’s office, but the governor refused to see him.  He then told his mother that he was going to burn himself and he bought gasoline or paint thinner, sat down in front of a government building, doused himself and set himself on fire. He was transferred to several hospitals as the need for better trauma care overwhelmed the local hospitals, but he died 18 days later. More than 5,000 people attended his funeral, and the mayor of Paris announced that a place in Paris will be named after him.

The protests and riots became so intense after Bouazizi’s death that the President of Tunisia, Ben Ali, fled the country, bringing down the Tunisian government after 23 years. Ben Ali tried first to go to Paris, but was refused entry. He eventually was accepted into Saudi Arabia and apparently resides there now.

Since the death of Mohamed Bouazizi, many other people have burned themselves in protest in many countries. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have had several cases of self-immolation. Protests have become widespread across the Middle East including Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan. Some of us remember the TV images of Buddhist monks burning themselves in Vietnam as a form of religious protest.

There was the public humiliation angle to what Bouazizi did, but his act had an economic angle as well. The poverty of the Tunisian people, the 30% unemployment rate, the rising food prices, along with the obvious official corruption, were enough for his act to serve as the match that burned down the Tunisian government. Now the Egyptian government looks to be on fire as well. Egypt – a nation of 85 million people – and 40% of them survive on less than US$1 dollar per day.

It seems that one man really can make a difference when the conditions are ripe for him to do so. The world has never been so ripe as it now. Is this our future? Time will tell.

- Darrell Castle


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 114 other followers