Whine and Cheese - The

Whine and Cheese - The Strib's editorial page is at it again, this time whining about the settlement that the state's public employees were "forced" to take:

"Leaders of Minnesota's two largest state employees unions had no other choice: They had to swallow hard and accept a new contract that will cut the compensation received by most of their members.

If I understand correctly, this statement is hogwash. The public employees will be paying more of their fair share of their own health care benefits. Ironically, the fact that public employees have had a free ride on health care is in some part responsible for the high cost of health care for the rest of us; when people can go to the doctor for free for every hangnail, it drives up the demand, and hence the price, for all the rest of us copay-paying (or uninsured) consumers.

But the Strib gets this right:

The 27,000 members of AFSCME Council 6 and the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE) are well advised to do the same. The alternative is a politically unsustainable strike that could lead to disaster, not only for the strikers' household budgets, but also for the future of collective bargaining by Minnesota's public workers.

A strike would not be well received by Minnesotans. It would be seen -- and spun, by allies of Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- as a union attempt to gain more generous benefits than many similarly occupied workers receive in the private sector.

Say what you will about the Strib - they're not stupid.

Just disingenuous:

Minnesotans are a fair-minded lot. They do not begrudge public employees decent compensation.

Notice the way the Strib keeps calling it "compensation" - as if they're getting their take-home pay cut!

State workers ought to complain about paying more for health care. The willingness of employers to transfer an increasing portion of health coverage costs to employees appears to be unlimited.

Quick - note the levels of disingenuity in this statement!

• The state employees' copays and premiums, even with the new contract, are vastly lower than those paid by private-sector consumers!
• The Strib mentions the "willingness of employers to transfer an increasing portion of health coverage costs to employees" as if it's an evil thing. It's not! And in fact if health care was all privately paid, it would likely be vastly more affordable than it is.
• The desired end result, of course, is between the lines; put it all back on the employer; mandate health care. And when that proves unsustainable, make it all "single-payer".

That - government-rationed health care - is, of course, the Strib's goal. They put it in code, of course:

[Unions] can galvanize grumbling resentment into political pressure for a solution to rising health care costs that does more than shove an increasing burden onto already overloaded shoulders.

Any questions?

Of course, there's a political motivation:

Public employees are also well positioned to help Minnesotans understand the full cost of a 'no-new-taxes' policy. The take-home pay they will sacrifice under the proposed contract is lost to them for good -- and lost now, when it is badly needed, in additional consumer spending to stimulate the state's economy.

Two possible answers to this:

• As if government employees are the only consumers!
• Government employees have in their hands the same solution to this "problem" that the rest of us do; don't go indiscriminately to the doctor! Take care of yourself!, and that means you, 300-pound municipal court employee and pot-bellied water-department worker and martini-swilling Attorney General's Office employee! It's what the rest of us do!

The Strib continues:

More than that, the compensation crimp will take a long-term toll on the willingness of talented people to choose public service as a career.

Oh, dear.

The crimp in compensation certainly drove "talented people" out of the buggywhip industry. Does that mean we should cave in to the BWMA's demands?

Posted by Mitch at October 16, 2003 06:49 AM