The "brush fire" analogy seems apt...

Wisconsin's dramatic fight over collective bargaining for State employees is now spilling over into both Indiana and Ohio, and other states have promised to change the manner in which such efforts are met across the country.

I read article after article about the nature of the fight, and the concerns of the unions versus the concerns of the taxpayers, but I really can't seem to find a detailed analysis of WHY such collective bargaining is beneficial in the first place.

Seems to me that the most influence that these unions had was during the era of segregation, when black sanitation workers in Memphis sued the State for civil rights violations happening while they were on the job. These workers won their suit, and justice was served.

But that was in 1968... what about today?

Unions representing employees in the private sector are bargaining for the rights of workers against the interests of shareholders and corporate ownership... in short, they (the unions) threaten the profit margin of ownership and agreement is reached between the two that benefits both as much as possible. If this isn't the case, then the company folds and the union workers are out of work anyway, right? That is the essence of "compromise" so necessary in collective bargaining, right?

Unions representing employees in the public sector are bargaining against the interests of taxpayers, via the "monopoly" of State-run operations. They are bargaining with politicians, whom by their very definition, have a vested interest in keeping the unions happy and content if their own jobs are to remain safe. Their is a conflict inherent in this formula, I think...

For example, the union employees protesting in Madison right now are calling for greater and greater support from their private sector "brothers and sisters" (auto, transportation, construction and hospitality union members)... but far less support is coming than they want or expect. Why is it that so many "union members" from the private sector are supporting (or at least not joining in the protests against) Walker and the GOP-members of the Wisconsin Congress?

Because the budget shortfall that the State faces means higher taxes for ALL residents of Wisconsin... and that means less money in the pockets of private-sector union members, and that means more impetus to get more from their collective bargaining agreements, too... which won't be forthcoming if the economy remains slow or stagnant.

I'm not saying Walker can't budge, either, though...

Walker has vowed to not compromise on "his bill", but his bill excluded collective bargaining agreements with local and State police forces from benefit cuts, and as anyone can see, traditionally, cops tend to vote conservatively (yes, even in Wisconsin)... and while I don't know exactly what Walker's reason was for excluding cuts to these union member's benefits, what it looks like to the rest of the country is Walker is playing favorites with the unions that support him. This can do nothing but HURT his efforts and prolong the debate.

If collective bargaining is bad for State taxpayers... then the cuts he is asking for need to be across-the-board cuts to all unions bargaining with the State. How else can the budget be truly "fixed"?