Campaign focused on one aspect, not total eradication, of collective bargaining
A few conservative sites in the Wisconsin blogosphere have brought up a contentious opinion regarding Gov. Scott Walker, his removal of bargaining rights for state workers, and whether he campaigned on that idea or not in 2010. An assertion is being made on these blogs that, prior to what has been basic common knowledge up to this point, Walker DID indeed campaign on ending bargaining rights for state employees.
Take these two blogs as examples of that assertion. Tim Gray, of
useyourgraymatter.com, and Steve Prestegard, of
The Presteblog, have both made the claim that, not only had Walker campaigned on the subject, but that unions even knew about it at that point in time.
Gray referenced an article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which stated:
Two leading candidates for governor [Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Scott Walker] say they could save taxpayers up to hundreds of millions of dollars a year by revamping the way schools and local governments buy health insurance for more than 200,000 public employees around Wisconsin.
...
What neither candidate highlights, however, is that their plans also will mean taking away unions' right to negotiate with their employers for their insurance carrier - a potentially explosive political fight.
(Emphasis added)
The other example, from Prestegard, looks at a flier from the American Federation of Teachers from 2010:
(Click to view a larger image)
The major aspect of the flier (for the purposes of the argument) is this little bit:
"Walker supports a bill that would take away the right of unions to negotiate health care benefits."A second flier from the 2010 campaign (this one from WEAC), provided by radio host Vicki McKenna (also available at Prestegard's site), made a similar mention of health care benefits being removed from the bargaining process:
What these two tidbits of information mean is that, yes, the unions knew that Walker was planning to take away some aspects of their negotiation rights. The emphasis here, however, is
SOME. Not all.
It should be noted that both sources attribute the same idea: that Walker was proposing that negotiation be terminated when it came to health plans. Still, is that enough to say that the people of this state should have seen it (the "bomb" as Walker called his plan) coming?
Hardly. Walker campaigned on an idea of removing one aspect of bargaining, and then subsequently removed nearly all aspects of it. What's more, the Journal Sentinel article that was used above points it out as clear as day: Walker didn't exactly "highlight" the fact that his plan would end these rights for workers, as far as their health plans went. And as Capper notes at Cognitive Dissidence,
Walker even testified to Congress that he didn't campaign explicitly on the removal of bargaining rights.
At best, you have Walker stating that he wanted to change how state workers' health plans worked. No mention was ever made of bargaining rights being removed in other aspects of their contracts.
Walker also implied that
he'd keep collective bargaining in place, making cuts using furloughs if bargaining failed, never eliminating the bargaining process outright:
So where does that leave us? Believing that Walker would make greater cuts to the bargaining process -- making the jump from assuming he'd remove health care plans from that process, to nearly dismantling the process entirely -- is a foolish assumption to make. The assertion that these conservative bloggers make (that the people should have known better) is equally as foolish.
I liken it to this: It'd be like ordering a steak medium-rare from your favorite restaurant, getting a charred hunk of meat resembling what you ordered, and getting a quizzical look from you waiter as he says to you, "Well, you wanted it
cooked, right?" In both cases (Walker "campaigning" on ending bargaining rights and the restaurant scenario) you have what was believed to be a smaller idea of what actually happened in the end.
Walker campaigned on removing one aspect of bargaining rights, and actually stated he was intending to use the remainder of the bargaining process to balance the budget, using furloughs where it didn't work. How one comes to the conclusion that that means what he REALLY meant was the total eradication of collective bargaining for state workers is beyond reasonable comprehension.