The Base in Rebellion

U.S. states are slashing their budgets. Labor unions are accepting wage cuts in order to avoid layoffs. But their members are objecting.

“These are not ordinary times, and we worked hard to balance shared sacrifice with fairness and respect,” said Danny Donohue, head of the Civil Service Employees Association, in trying to sell the union’s agreement with the state of New York to members. Donohue added, “Equally important, it provides job security and prevents massive layoffs.” The CSEA faces a problem. It agreed to a compromise with the financially embattled state, but the compromise lacks the support of union members, who don’t appear inclined to accept the deal. The deal includes, among other things, a three-year freeze on wages, higher employee contributions to health care plans and several unpaid mandatory furloughs, as well as reductions in retirement pay. In return, the state is guaranteeing members continued employment for two years and a two percent wage increase after three years.

New York’s second largest union, the Public Employees Federation, faces similar problems. It is also finding it difficult to make their negotiated deal palatable to members. The two unions together represent more than half of New York’s public employees.

The drastic push for reductions aren’t limited to just the East Coast states. Public services face serious cutbacks all across the country. In order to salvage their dilapidated budgets, many states are demanding extreme concessions in wage negotiations by threatening mass layoffs. Union leaders are expected to sell those ideas to their members, but they are facing rebellion from them instead. A compromise similar to the New York proposal was torpedoed last month in Connecticut by a veto from the rank and file. In New York’s capital, the small Albany police union was forced to turn down the governor’s cutback compromise plan; the pressure from below was just too great. Many employing agencies are now reacting to the rank and file’s displeasure with attempts to prevent such compromises from even being proposed.

At the same time, state governments are constantly being exposed to increasingly hostile attacks. Recently, Pat Quinn, the Democratic governor of Illinois, rejected a contract asking for moderate wage increases for 30,000 employees, citing empty state coffers. Unions reacted angrily, calling the move “illegal and irresponsible.” But in many state houses, conservative majorities are demanding an end to even the most basic union rights. The most prominent example of that is Wisconsin. Right-wing extremist Scott Walker, elected governor in 2010, tried to limit union bargaining rights to wages only, with retirement and health care benefits being non-negotiable.

But that offensive produced an unexpected wave of protest. The mass demonstrations that followed resulted in a sit-in that disrupted the legislature and overshadowed even the mobilization efforts of the arch-conservative tea party movement.

By way of so-called recall elections, Governor Walker has meanwhile had to worry about his conservative majority in congress. Election law in the Midwest empowers voters to hold new elections and “recall” even those newly elected members. In total, six Republicans and three Democrats must undergo recall elections. A gain of only three seats by Democrats would put an end to most of Scott Walker’s legislative projects.

One sign of Wisconsin’s changing mood was the recall victory of Democratic Senator Dave Hansen during the first round of recall votes. Hansen received more than twice the number of votes as his conservative challenger. Hansen had fled to neighboring Illinois with 13 of his colleagues in order to prevent the legislature from conducting business for lack of a quorum. Wisconsin Republicans now had one less representative and the anti-union law was blocked.