Democrats & Unions

Two good reads here - one brief, one less so. But the latest active role that public employee unions are taking ought to be one that a) warrants more attention from the news pros and bloggers ... and b) may not be a net positive for Democrats.

Joel Kotkin & Harry Siegel give good coverage to this in TNR, focusing primarily on the news d'jour of the New York City transit strike. Their principal point is that a fully compliant political entity (as New York's city council was) doesn't send the strongest signal that those elected are there to serve the public interest over the special interest.

Meanwhile, Kevin Drum highlights a minor point that gets mentioned in a NYT article, but also serves as a significant point by Kotkin & Seigel ... that of the 55-25 provision. I agree 100% with Kevin's conclusion, which was why I cast my vote for Mayor White to renegotiate the city's pension plan with employees back in April '04. We had a similar provision here and the threat was that it would lead to pensions being the #1 function of city government in a matter of years. Now, it seems the urgency is catching up with other cities stuck with such a bargain.

It should be noted that this goes hat in hand with the recent SEIU efforts to take over the organizing of city employees, even at the expense of canniballizing other unions (primarily AFSCME). They've now managed to buy seats at the table on the councils of Los Angeles, San Antonio ... and now Houston.

Like many political battles, there's no apparent clock that dictates the state of play. Lose a pension battle? Become a major player in city elections. Stuck in negotiations? Call an illegal strike and bargain from a position of strength courtesy of a feeble city council.

I fail to see how such fealty is a winning proposition for Democrats, and I say that as one who defends the principals of worker rights and the right to organize a union.

UPDATE: John Avlon is similarly unimpressed with the TWA strikers in New York.