Thursday, March 3, 2011

Rasmussen: Support for budget cutting, not for weakening collective bargaining

Rasmussen: Most Wisconsin voters oppose efforts to weaken collective bargaining rights for union workers but a plurality are supportive of significant pay cuts for state workers. Governor Scott Walker is struggling in the court of public opinion, but how badly he is struggling depends upon how the issue is presented. There is also an interesting gap between the views of private and public sector union families.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Wisconsin voters shows that just 39% favor weakening collective bargaining rights and 52% are opposed. At the same time, 44% support a 10% pay cut for all state workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) are opposed. That’s partly because 27% of Wisconsin voters believe state workers are paid too much and 16% believe they are paid too little. Forty-nine percent (49%) believe the pay of state workers is about right. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
This is now the third poll (NYT and WSJ) that has shown majority support for keeping collective bargaining rights. It is also the third poll that shows that the support slips when you when you show how collective bargaining effects state's budgets.

I think two things are working against Walker. First is clearly messaging. Walker has not done a really good job of explain just how collective bargaining affects things other than employee salary and pension. For example how teacher unions use collective bargaining to impede much needed reform.

The second thing working against Walker is the dragging out of the process. Once the Fleebaggers fled, senate Republicans should have immediately begun cranking up the pressure. As the drama in Wisconsin draws out longer and longer, I expect Walker support for Walker to wain more. Wisconsin should take a cue from Ohio. Over there they are moving very quickly for even stricter reforms.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Rasmussen Reports
Via: New York Times
Via: Wall Street Journal


Just a conservative girl said...

I am not really surprised by this as the union movement started in this state. It is part of their history. But I also don't think that people fully understand what collective bargaining really means; such as teacher tenure.

Clifton B said...


I don't think many Americans understand how collective bargaining has been abused by unions. Too many people cling to the old image of unions and the individual members. Too many are not seeing the corruption in the union leadership.

Mr. Mcgranor said...

To heck with majority consent. Is our principle as a Republic: liberty? If it is, then we have been a democracy for too long.

Atlanta Roofing said...

We already have enough people unemployed in the united states. Working under/with a union contract/rules, is safer for employees than working for an emotional boss. With a union contract you dont have to be one of the “good ole boys” or in the “click” to do your job, everything you do is black and white. Our benefits are scouted out to be the least expensive available. We are middle income/ low income people. What kind of free benefits do senators and govenors get? Maids, cooks, health care? Please don’t take more from the middle class again, not until you have lived like us for at least a full year.

Anonymous said...


Clifton B said...


We have been moving more and more towards a democracy every year. That is because so few people understand the difference between a republic and a democracy.

Clifton B said...

Atlanta Roofing:

I get where you are coming from. I also am assuming from your screen name you are in a private sector union. There is quite a difference between that and public sector unions.

In your case your boss/ contractor has to work with a bottom line. That bottom line insures that management will negotiate aggressively with your union.

With public sector unions no such incentive exists on behalf of the taxpayer. On one hand you have weak Republicans who are more concerned with reelection. On the other hand you have Democrats bought and paid for by the very people they are negotiating with. The result, taxpayers get hosed every time.

The middle class is hit by this practice. I offer myself as an example. I live in a house that was paid off by my grandparents back in the 70's. I pay over $15,000 in property taxes (swear to God). It is breaking my back. If it wasn't for the fact my house has no mortgage, I would have had to abandon my family home long ago. I ask you, is it fair that someone lose their home to pay for excessive benefits for public servants?

Yes, unions have contributed greatly in the past, but do not allow nostalgia to cloud what is happening today. Public sector unions have become abusive.

Clifton B said...


Thanks for the heads up, correction made.

Related Posts with Thumbnails