Just shut up and play your banjo, Steve.

According to former comedian Steve Martin, who was last observed being funny about 20 years ago, atheists don't have any songs.

Actually, they do. Here's one, for example: 

And here's another. Perhaps Steve has heard this one:



And another:



There are others.

I hope that this has been educational, Steve.

A few from Menomena

From the 2010 album Mines:

For Your Further Enlightenment XVI

I took a six-day break from the blog, so some of these links will seem dated. (Since I created this post, Republicans in Wisconsin have broken the law to pass their union-killing legislation.)

• Think Progress: "The Catholic Church Supports Unions As ‘Moral Choices,’ Says Bargaining Rights Reflect ‘Principles Of Justice’" (How long until Glenn Beck goes after them for this?)
• Ezra Klein: "How to increase the deficit by cutting government spending"
• Talking Points Memo: "Fox Buses In Footage From Sacramento To Make Union Protesters Look Violent (VIDEO)"
• Slactivist: "Expelling the Quakers from Plymouth"
• Think Progress: "GRAPH: As Union Membership Has Declined, Income Inequality Has Skyrocketed In The United States"
• Think Progress: "Conservatives Mock Ellison For Emotional Testimony On Muslim 9/11 First Responder" (I knew as soon as I saw his testimony that the right-wing assholes would be coming out of the woodwork.)
• Politifact: "Michael Moore says 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined"
• Howard Darmstadter, Philosophy Now: "David Hume at 300"
• William Saletan, Slate: "Man vs. Meltdown: Will Japan's nuclear crisis end in catastrophe?"
• Slate: "A State's Right: Why states, like Michigan, have the power to take over local governments" (How convenient it is that the law and the Republican Party's political goals are in perfect harmony.) 
• Think Progress: "REPORT: In 12 States, GOP Plans To Slash Corporate Taxes While Increasing Burden on Working Families" 
• The Blaze: "Does Raw Video of NPR Expose Reveal Questionable Editing & Tactics?"
• The Guardian: "Scott Walker's real agenda in Wisconsin: The Republican governor's budget plan would open the state up to a corporate asset-grab not seen since robber baron capitalism" 
• RedState, "White House: We Don't Know Nothing about Nothing" (Moe Lane thinks that rookie White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made a mistake. Good, Moe, that's real good! Would you like a Twinkie? But Moe finds a way to turn what he claims to be a rookie mistake into a hard-hitting critique of President Obama and his staff. Is there anything constructive you could be doing with your time, Moe?)
• Here's something I need to remember.

Could Lane's latest be the worst RedState post ever?

RedState's Moe Lane is moaning about a "contemptible" letter signed by leaders of police, firefighters, and teachers in Wisconsin and sent to the President of Marshall & Ilsley Corporation in Milwaukee. The part of the letter Lane quotes reads as follows:

The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company.

Here is what Lane says about the letter:

Now, this would not be a contemptible letter if it were signed by members of private sector unions.  Private sector unions work in trades, and they have the right to make informed business choices (and even uninformed ones).  But public sector union members are supposedly public servants - and they are expected to avoid even the hint of impropriety in their labor disputes.  This is a barely-veiled threat from the cops and the firemen that organizations subject to the anti-labor reform boycott cannot expect a prompt and effective response from them in case of emergency.  Simply put, there are different standards of behavior for emergency responders.  Stricter ones, because being a repository of the public trust carries with it an expectation of behavior that is appropriate for that trust.  This letter harms that trust.

Stop.  Let me explicitly say that I do not believe any pious excuses along the lines of “That’s not what they meant!”  This is precisely the kind of let’s-imply-without-saying, sneak behavior that we’ve all come to expect from union ‘negotiators.’  Let me also explicitly say that the cops and firemen have nobody but themselves to blame for making anybody trust them less as a result of this letter: if they don’t want people to have legitimate concerns about public ’servants’ taking partisan sides, then public ’servants’ shouldn’t take partisan sides.  

I am inclined to interpret Lane's post as uncharitably as he has interpreted the letter he's moaning about. Rather than take the high road, I will emulate the behavior exemplified by those conservative bloggers who also happen to be assholes such as Lane and pay Lane back in his own coin.

According to Lane, the members of private sector unions have the right to make business choices. The implication is that members of public sector unions do not have the right to make business choices. Is Lane seriously suggesting that once a person joins a public sector union that that person surrenders her right to make business choices? Is Lane seriously suggesting that the members of public sector unions can be forced to do business with M&I Bank? Is Lane seriously suggesting that persons cannot collectively choose not to do business with this or that corporation? How free can a market be when persons cannot make free choices within that market? Conservatives claim that they are in favor of free markets, but many of them (including Lane, evidently) really aren't (which is something that I have known for some time).

The threat being made in the letter is a potential boycott of goods and services provided by M&I Bank, and that's it. It is clear to anyone who has a command of the English language that the people signing the letter and the members of the groups they represent are threatening to not do business with M&I Bank. That's what a boycott is. And it is abundantly clear that that is all that is being threatened in the letter. If Lane thinks that he can tell people who they can and cannot do business with, then he can go fuck himself.

Lane, however, claims that he has detected an implication in the letter that emergency responders will not respond as promptly and effectively to emergencies involving M&I Bank if M&I Bank does not express opposition to Scott Walker's union-killing bill. I detect no such implication whatsoever, either in the passage Lane quoted or in the rest of the letter. Lane insists that it's there: remember, he says, "I do not believe any pious excuses along the lines of 'That’s not what they meant!'  This is precisely the kind of let’s-imply-without-saying, sneak behavior that we’ve all come to expect from union 'negotiators.'" It doesn't matter, then, what the letter says: if the letter contains the threat, it's in there, and if the letter does not contain the threat, it's still in there. That is why, in the final analysis, Lane's post is a miserable, worthless piece of shit.

Did you know that Scott Walker's union-killing bill does not apply to police and firefighter unions? According to the New York Times,

The new law weakens unions representing public sector employees by limiting bargaining to wages, restricting raises to inflation, increasing the amount employees pay for health insurance and pensions, and giving union members the right not to pay dues. It also requires unions to hold annual votes to determine if workers still want to belong. The law exempts firefighters and law enforcement personnel. 

Why would it exempt firefighters and police officers? Because they tend to vote Republican, while teachers tend to vote Democratic. The bill targets teachers' unions because the bill is an attempt to weaken the Democratic Party in Wisconsin and make the Republican Party more powerful as a result. Funny, then, that Lane would claim that public servants should be politically neutral, when the political views of cops and firefighters were obviously a consideration in the design of Walker's union-killing bill.

Think about what Lane is alleging. Does he seriously mean to suggest that if there is a fire at a branch of M&I Bank, that firefighters won't respond as quickly as they otherwise would and subsequently endanger innocent human lives? Is Lane seriously suggesting that in the event of a bank robbery at a branch of M&I Bank, police officers will lollygag on their way to the scene and again put innocent human lives at risk? Seriously?

Lane's insane post tells us virtually nothing about labor relations in Wisconsin, but it speaks volumes about Lane himself, and this is what it tells us: even if you tend to be conservative and vote Republican, if you cross Lane on an issue like this, he will plunge the knife in and twist it. Lane's post ends with the following words:

If I lived in Wisconsin, I would be pounding the table right now and demanding that every signatory to that letter hand in their badges.  Since I don’t, it’s incumbent on Wisconsin citizens to make an answer to this.

 Indeed you would, Moe, indeed you would. Because you are a prick.

History Lesson for Scott Walker

This is our moment, this is our time to change the course of history. —Scott Walker

Ronald Reagan, Remarks in Chicago, Illinois, at the Annual Convention and Centennial Observance of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, 3 September 1981:

This union has a proud history. Just 100 years ago, having only a few thousand members, you opened your first convention in Chicago. Now, it's not true that I attended that convention, also. [Laughter] Since then, you've grown to more than 800,000 members. You've served as a bulwark in America's free union movement.

Over the years, this union was responsible for improving the well-being of its members as they labored building this Nation. And through the collective bargaining system, you improved images—or wages, I should say—benefits, and working conditions. More than that, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners has shown time and time again that it supports our free market system and the fundamental tenets of American democracy. It was this belief in representative government and free enterprise that gave the working people of this country unequaled freedom and prosperity.

We forget this at our peril. In these recent years when advocates of collectivism and government intervention have held sway, we should recall the wisdom of that greatest of labor statesmen, the founder of the American labor movement, Samuel Gompers. He said, "Doing for people what they can and ought to do for themselves is a dangerous experiment. In the last analysis, the welfare of the workers depends on their own initiative. Whatever is done under the guise of philanthropy or social morality which in any way lessens initiative is the greatest crime that can be committed against the toilers. Let social busybodies and professional 'public morals experts' in their fads reflect upon the perils they rashly invite under this pretense of social welfare."

Samuel Gompers believed with all his heart that if a worker was properly and fairly paid for his work, he could provide for himself without having to hold out this hand to a caseworker for government-provided benefits. He was a champion of collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining in the years since has played a major role in America's economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere. Too often, discussion about the labor movement concentrates on disputes, corruption, and strikes. But while these things are headlines, there are thousands of good agreements reached and put into practice every year without a hitch.

Part of successful collective bargaining is honest, straightforward exchanges. A number of Presidents have observed that of all the meetings in the Oval Office, the most direct, productive, and useful have been with the leaders of organized labor. Straight talk has always been a feature of these exchanges, and that's a tradition I want to continue here today. You and I may not always agree, as President Konyha said, on everything, but we should always remember how much we have in common.

I can guarantee you today that this administration will not fight inflation by attacking the sacred right of American workers to negotiate their wages. We propose to control government, not people. Now, today I want to express again my belief in our American system of collective bargaining and pledge that there will always be an open door to you in this administration.

During my 8 years as Governor of California, I was proud of my relationship with organized labor. Yes, we had disagreements over such things as welfare reform and budget allocation, but we followed the advice of a one-time mayor of Boston who said, "We can disagree without being disagreeable."

Some people would have forgotten-except your president very graciously reminded you—that I am the first man to attain this high office who was formerly president of an AF of L-CIO union.

Ronald Reagan, Labor Day Speech at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, New Jersey, 1 September 1980:

On this day, dedicated to American working men and women, may I tell you the vision I have of a new administration and of a new Congress, filled with new members dedicated to the values we honor today?

Beginning in January of 1981, American workers will once again be heeded.  Their needs and values will be acted upon in Washington.  I will consult with representatives of organized labor on those matters concerning the welfare of the working people of this nation.

I happen to be the only president of a union ever to be a candidate for President of the United States.

As president of my union -- the Screen Actors Guild -- I spent many hours with the late George Meany, whose love of this country and whose belief in a strong defense against all totalitarians is one of labor’s greatest legacies.  One year ago today on Labor Day George Meany told the American people:

“As American workers and their families return from their summer vacations they face growing unemployment and inflation, a climate of economic anxiety and uncertainty."

Well I pledge to you in his memory that the voice of the American worker will once again be heeded in Washington and that the climate of fear that he spoke of will no longer threaten workers and their families.

When we talk about tax reduction, when we talk about ending inflation by stopping it where it starts -- in Washington -- we are talking about a way to bring labor and management together for America.  We are talking about jobs, and productivity and wages.  We are talking about doing away with Jimmy Carter’s view of a no-growth policy, and ever-shrinking economic pie with smaller pieces for each of us.

That’s no answer.  We can have a bigger pie with bigger slices for everyone.  I believe that together you and I can bake that bigger pie.  We can make that dream that brought so many of us or our parents and grandparents to this land live once more.

Let us work to protect the human right to acquire and own a home, and make sure that that right is extended to as many Americans as possible.  A home is part of that dream.

I want to work in Washington to roll back the crushing burden of taxation that limits investment, production, and the generation of real wealth for our people.  A job, and savings, and hope for our children is part of that dream.

I want to help Americans of every race, creed and heritage keep and build that sense of community which is at the heart of America, for a decent neighborhood is part of that dream.

We will work to strengthen the small business sector which creates most of the new jobs we need for our people.  Small business needs relief from government paperwork, relief from over-regulation, relief from a  host of governmentally-created problems that defeat the effort of creative men and women.  A chance to invest, build and produce new wealth is part of the dream.

But restoring the American dream requires more than restoring a sound, productive economy, vitally important as that is.  It requires a return to spiritual and moral values, values so deeply held by those who came here to build a new life.  We need to restore those values in our daily life, in our neighborhoods and in our government’s dealings with the other nations of the world.

These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland. The values that have inspired other dissidents under Communist domination.  They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.  They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children.  Today the workers in Poland are showing a new generation not how high is the price of freedom but how much it is worth that price.

A few more from Mew

For Your Further Enlightenment XV

• Andrew Koppelman: "Bad News for Mail Robbers: The Obvious Constitutionality of Health Care Reform"
• David Papineau, The Philosophers' Magazine: "What is x-phi good for?"
• Ezra Klein: "Why Unions Are Worth Fighting For"
• The Washington Post: "GOP spending plan would cost 700,000 jobs, new report says"
• Think Progress: "Huckabee And Christie Defend First Lady’s Obesity Campaign Against Right-Wing Attacks"
• The Daily Beast: "Is Right-Wing Talk Dying?"
• Center for American Progress: "Infographic: Tax Cuts vs. Budget Cuts"
• Andrew Sullivan: "How Powerful Are Unions Politically?"
• The New York Times: "Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector Unions"
• David Weigel, Slate: "Do We Believe this Rasmussen Poll on a Government Shutdown?"
• Capital Gains and Games: "Fall In U.K. GDP Creates Problems For U.S. GOP"
• Slate: "Psych-Out Sexism: The innocent, unconscious bias that discourages girls from math and science"
• Scientific American: "The Scopes Strategy: Creationists Try New Tactics to Promote Anti-Evolutionary Teaching in Public Schools"
• Robert Krulwich, NPR: "Cactus Walking On 20 Legs Found In China"

Φ finds a lefty blogger wanting

In her comment on one of my posts, a valued reader suggested that I "call out more on the left" and mentioned Oliver Willis by name.

For various reasons, I believe that I am better equipped psychologically to call out those on the right. Still, even the most devoted lefty can detect sloppiness in Willis' work, as well as a tendency to demonize those with whom he disagrees.

One of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama was his dedication to the principle that we disagree without being disagreeable. I was primed for it after a Rove-directed presidency propelled by the demonization of and refusal to negotiate with opponents as well as its commitment to assholery in general.

I know that I sometimes fail to live up this this principle. I am perfectly capable of being an asshole. It's something that one has to resist every time one thinks about politics or reads the blogs or tunes in to cable news. For example, during the health care reform debate, I was so frustrated with Republican obstructionism that I cheered on former Florida Representative Alan Grayson when he said on the floor of the House that the Republican plan for health care reform was to die quickly in the event of injury or illness. Too many Republican politicians, in my view, don't really care about reforming health care, but it is unfair to claim that they want people to die quickly. And surely there are some Republican politicians who are troubled by our health care system and want to reform it.

So it is clear that some lefties engage in assholery from time to time, myself included. Willis is no different. In one post, Willis presents the following passage from this story:

During his weekly news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Boehner claimed that Mr. Obama has added 200,000 federal workers since he took office (a figure that has been disputed), and shrugged at the idea that Republican efforts to slash government spending would put many of them out of work. 

“If some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it,” Mr. Boehner said. “We’re broke. It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money.”

In response, Willis writes, "And with that, John Boehner tells the truth about what conservatives think about jobs." And that's it.

That's what conservatives think about jobs. Granted, Boehner is their leader in the House, but Willis is overgeneralizing a bit, isn't he? And the implication that Republicans in the House are opposed to jobs is unfair. Now, there is nothing wrong with taking issue with what Republicans tend to believe about the government's role in managing the economy. Those government jobs actually stimulate the economy by putting money in the hands of people who will likely spend most of it. But demonizing Republicans in general by implying that they're anti-job is unfair and over the top.

In "Write A Negative Story About The NRA, Get Racist Hate Mail," Willis quotes Michael Luo of the New York Times as writing the following:

In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.

Luo tweeted that he received an e-mail in response to the story which read in part, "why don't you go back to where you came from?"

Willis characterizes this as "the response from the right," and ends the post with the statement, "They are who we thought they were."

What justifies Willis in painting all conservatives with the same broad brush? How is this any different than the bullshit one constantly finds at a right-wing blog like Lori Ziganto's, where it is suggested that all pro-choicers believe in abortion on demand and either support the activities of Kermit Gosnell or are not alarmed by them? We can all do better than this.

Another Willis post from February is entitled, "Republicans Really Hate America, Want To Shut Down Its Government." The post, in its entirety, is as follows:

That is the only rational way to view this joke of a budget passed by the House GOP. How bad is it? Even the conservative blue dog Democrats – many of them basically Republicans – passed on it. These same people who think that the Wall Streeters who caused the fiscal crisis should be rewarded versus punished, think that the people who should pay are the poor and infirm.

The same people, who blanched at the financial reform bill that had already had most of its teeth taken out, seek to kick the neediest Americans right in the teeth.

Combine this with the assault on unionized workers in Wisconsin and Ohio, in addition to other, less high profile instances, and it is very clear that the Republican Party and the conservative movement that backs it isn’t very fond of this country.

The President and party they supported almost brought the nation to its knees for their 8 years of misrule. Now it seems they want to administer the killing blow.

We can’t let them.

Republicans really hate America, they seek to kick the neediest Americans right in the teeth, and they want to administer the killing blow, according to Willis. Now, it might be argued that Willis did not intend to say that Republicans know that their budget cuts would deliver the killing blow to the United States. Perhaps he intended to say only that they want those cuts but do not realize that they would kill the United States. But that interpretation doesn't cohere well with the title of the post.

Now, reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of deep budget cuts. I personally agree with the President's former plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans, and I'm tired of the Republican tendency to ask only the poor and middle class to make sacrifices. But the idea that Republicans hate America and want to kill it is ridiculous. I am sick and tired of hearing from right-wingers that I hate America simply because I'm a liberal. If I don't want to be the target of that shit, then why would I make others the target of it? Someone has to be the big person in this and respond to inflammatory rhetoric with dispassionate facts and reason. Can't Willis be that guy? Can't I?

Judging from the few posts I have read, Willis and I are often in agreement on political matters. But he should strive to set a better example and be a more honorable representative of those of us on the left. As should I.

For Your Further Enlightenment XIV

• Leon H. Wolf, RedState: "A Response to Jim Hoft on the Matter of Lara Logan" (I am on record as calling Wolf an asshole, but he almost redeems himself with this intelligent, well-written, spot-on post. Well done, Leon.)
• Ken Jennings, Slate: "My Puny Human Brain: Jeopardy! genius Ken Jennings on what it's like to play against a supercomputer"
• Talking Points Memo: "Dems Closed Much Larger Budget Shortfall In Wisconsin Without Destroying Worker Rights"
• David Byrne, Wired: "David Byrne's Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists — and Megastars"
• Mother Jones: "It's the Inequality, Stupid: Eight charts that explain everything that's wrong with America"
• Think Progress: "Fox Reverses Results Of Gallup Poll To Claim Americans Oppose Union Collective Bargaining Rights"
• Mother Jones: "What's Happening in Wisconsin Explained"
• David Frum: "Wisconsin’s Budget Fight is Only the Beginning" (Frum states, "Private-sector workers earn less than government workers." The truth is different, according to The Economist.) 
• Economic Policy Institute: "Wisconsin public versus private employee costs: Why compare apples to oranges?" 
• Think Progress: "FLASHBACK: Gov. Walker Promised To End Late-Night Votes Because ‘Nothing Good Happens After Midnight’"
• Think Progress: "Broun’s Vitriol Spawns Hate As Constituent Asks Congressman, ‘Who’s Going To Shoot President Obama?’"
• Matthew Yglesias: "How To Run America Like a Business: Get Rid Of All The Old People" 
• Ezra Klein: "How To Run America Like a Business"

Do private-sector workers earn less than government workers?

I am posting this here, and I hope that The Economist doesn't mind too much.

Don't join the government to get rich

Feb 21st 2011, 14:55 by M.S.

ONE of the memes being thrown around over the past few years by advocates of reducing the power of public-sector unions has been the claim that public-sector workers are overpaid in comparison to their private-sector counterparts. I've always considered this an odd claim to hear, as I've been in the labour market for quite a long time and can't recall ever hearing anyone say they were going to work for a government bureaucracy because they wanted to make a lot of money. At crucial career-making junctures in life, people who want to get rich tend to enter corporate law rather than join the District Attorney's office, to work for internet companies rather than teach math in public high schools, and so forth.

All of this is coming up now because Wisconsin has become the showdown state for the public-sector union controversy, and Scott Walker, the governor, is claiming he needs to destroy the state's public-sector unions' ability to negotiate in order to deal with its budget shortfall. State workers, he says, are paid too much. But the Economic Policy Institute tells us that, in Wisconsin, public-sector workers are not in fact paid more than their private-sector counterparts. They're paid less. You can only make it appear that public-sector workers earn more by ignoring the fact that "both nationally and within Wisconsin, public sector workers are significantly more educated than their private sector counterparts."

Nationally, 54% of full-time state and local public sector workers hold at least a four-year college degree, compared with 35% of full-time private sector workers. In Wisconsin, the difference is even greater: 59% of full-time Wisconsin public sector workers hold at least a four-year college degree, compared with 30% of full-time private sector workers. 

...Public employees receive substantially lower wages, but much better benefits than their private sector counterparts. Wisconsin state and local governments pay public employees 14.2% lower annual wages than comparable private sector employees. On an hourly basis, they earn 10.7% less in wages. College-educated employees earn on average 28% less in wages and 25% less in total compensation in the public sector than in the private sector.

The EPI study does find there's a class of public-sector workers who earn a bit more than their private-sector counterparts: those without high-school degrees. In other words, district attorneys earn less than corporate lawyers, but janitors at the district attorney's office may earn more than janitors at a corporate law office—provided the government hasn't outsourced its facilities staff to the same private company the law office uses, which it may have, since governments have been targeting low-skilled workers for outsourcing precisely because that's how they can save money.

For most people who work for the government, however, the expectation is that your year-to-year salary will be lower, but your benefits will be better, in particular your pension. It turns out, however, that state governments won't have the money to pay a lot of those pensions. They're likely to renege on their promises, and Republicans in Congress want to allow them to declare bankruptcy in order to do so. (Funnily enough, this may be the one area in which labour unions and Wall Street are in alliance: neither one wants states to be allowed to declare bankruptcy.) In other words, as Ezra Klein points out, the public-sector employees got rooked: they accepted lower pay in exchange for retirement benefits, and now the retirement benefits look unlikely to come through.

Now, how can we explain the fact that public-sector employees are paid less than private-sector employees? After all, public-sector employees are heavily unionised, while private-sector employees aren't. Shouldn't those unions be winning public-sector employees better wages? Well, I don't really know; perhaps the fact that the government is a monopoly employer with staggering market power has something to do with it. But try considering how employees' wage negotiations with the government might look if there were no public-sector unions. In most lines of work, individuals' power to negotiate higher wages with large organisations is very limited. In government employment, individuals' power to negotiate higher wages is utterly non-existent. An individual teacher who bargains with a private school for a higher wage than her peers is going to have a tough negotiation on her hands; an individual teacher who tries to bargain with the City of Milwaukee for a higher wage than her peers is going to be laughed out of the superintendent's office. In his initial post on this subject, my colleague ventured that civil servants would constitute a powerful bloc able to protect their wages even without unions. I'm not really sure what this means. Through what mechanism are civil servants supposed to bargain for wage increases if they don't have unions? Who's supposed to do the bargaining?

Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/wisconsin_public_unions