Ask LJ: Why does the Tea Party support Walker?

[asterroc]

Apparently the Tea Party supports Governor Walker's union busting. I don't get this at all. I thought the Tea Party was a conservative libertarian group. Shouldn't they resent the government interfering with and attempting to regulate how workers interact with employers? Or is their fiscal conservatism trumping their libertarianism?

Comments

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

they're entities that have a lot of special institutional rights and privileges that are supported by legislation.

They certainly do have certain rights and privileges, but I am not aware of a large amount of legislation that supports them more than other non-profit organizations, or a non-profit charity such as the United Way. (I don't mean this legislation doesn't exist, I mean that I want to know more about it.) The only one I can think of at the moment is that unions can garnish wages (i.e., payroll deduction) for agency fees. (Which some states want to get rid of.)

[q10.livejournal.com]

the wage-garnishing thing is pretty huge, though. more generally, there are, as i understand it, a lot of regulations constraining both sides of employer-union negotiations - it's not like you're just talking about two (for-profit or non-profit) corporations sitting down for a chat - there are detailed regulations about what each side can and can't threaten.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

the wage-garnishing thing is pretty huge, though.

You're right.

there are detailed regulations about what each side can and can't threaten.

I thought most of those things are not specific to union workplaces though? Public employees are not allowed to strike in some states (technically, striking is not a protected act), but this applies to both unionized and non-unionized public employees (for example, the part-time lab techs in my department are not unionized). Non-retaliation laws apply not only to employers retaliating against employees for union activities, but also to employers retaliating against whistle-blowers (for safety, for discrimination, etc.).

[sildra.livejournal.com]

They have the right to do collective bargaining. In some places and industries they have the right not let non-union members work in that industry--it becomes essentially a guild. (I ran up against this once during an internship. I really wanted to cut some metal and drill a couple holes, and the task didn't warrant asking a professional to do it for me. I'd had safety training on machines at school, so that wasn't an issue. But, I was told, machining is a closed shop profession, and I was not allowed to enter the machine shop.)

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

They have the right to do collective bargaining.

But corporations have the right to work together, and individuals have the right to work together in other contexts than just unions Price fixing may be illegal (I forget if it is), but multiple small organizations can bargain together for a better deal on say a large purchase of printer paper. Multiple home owners can form a home heating oil co-op. How is this different from multiple employees approaching the employer together about their wages and work conditions?