A Voice, Not A Veto

As the battle over collective bargaining in Massachusetts moves to the state Senate, all of the major players seem to agree on one thing: labor unions should have “a voice” in determination of municipal employee health benefits.  The Governor has used the term consistently.  So has Senate President Murray.  So have union honchos Robert Haynes and Ed Kelly, both of whom have claimed rather stridently over the past 36 hours that the House budget provision causing all the stir will “silence” the workers’ “voice.”

The State House News Service tried today to gauge the posture of various influential Senators.  Most – including the Senate President – claimed they have not yet read the House language.  That’s more than a little bit difficult to believe, but one can hardly blame them for their desire to have a few days to digest the issue before Haynes, Kelly & Co. commence screaming in their faces.  One thing they all seem to agree on, though, is the “voice” thing.  Here are a few excerpts from the SHNS coverage:

Amid the uncertainty, two points of agreement between proponents and opponents of the House proposal appear to have taken shape: Labor unions should continue to have “a voice” in determining their health care costs, and the Legislature should help cities and towns find a way to save tens of millions of dollars on their health care bills. It’s the critical details that are still fuzzy…

Sen. Katherine Clark, a Melrose Democrat and the co-chair of the Committee on Public Service, said senators were reviewing the House proposal…

“I have a serious concern about making sure we giving retirees a voice,” she said, Sen. Thomas McGee said he was unaware of the specifics of the House proposal but said he hoped that whatever the outcome of the debate, municipal workers should have “a voice in the process” of setting their health care co-pays and deductibles.

Get it?  Everybody wants to make sure labor has “a voice.”  And that’s a good thing, because it just so happens that the House proposal gives them a voice.  Here’s how… READ THE REST at CriticalMASS

About CriticalDan

  • gary

    I really get sick of the unions whining about their “voice”.

    Raise taxes or cut spending.  That’s done with a rep’s vote, and we’re a republic so that’s our voice. That’s the taxpayer vote.  Cut programs, build roads, mandate health insurance, redistrict voting districts,…it’s all done with the reps’ vote.  Our voice.

    But suggest cutting aspects of health care with the same rep’s vote and suddenly workers have lost their “voice”.  Bullshit. Why should a state workers’ voice be louder than a taxpayer’s voice?

    Here we have the “boss,” the benevolent State, the Democratic party as the most benevolent workers’ party bending over backwards to keep the state payrolls fat and the paycheck patriots happy and the unions slap them (the reps) and us (the taxpayers) in the face.

    Public unions for years have wanted more and have received more, and the politicians, the “boss” wants to give more.  And now, with the budget short by a billion or so, and now with the boss who has no alternative, it’s a Nixon to China moment.  

    The Dems should simply bust the union collective bargaining: (1) Patrick can give his touchy-feely speech, telling everyone that he feels their pain; (2) the unions can rant and whine but by November, they’ll vote their paycheck and pull the Dem lever anyway; (3) State and local save a grip on health insurance.