Florida governor won’t ban unions (he’ll just tell them what they can do)
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Governor Scott of Florida (Republican; aka Tea Party).
While I don’t have a problem with organization leadership getting the approval of members for political donations that comes from the dues of members, I also think this should apply to corporations where the donations come out of shareholder equity or dividends.
Governor Scott shows his mindset pretty clearly in the last sentence below, where he appears to think that the money paid to public employees is not their money even after they have been paid for their work.
Honestly, I am flabbergasted at this attitude; until I remember who it comes from.
HUNT: Governor, you want to cut down on the cost for taxpayers on public employees, but you have said collective bargaining is fine. After all, the cost to taxpayers -
SCOTT: Well, we have it. We have it in our constitution. So I don’t -
HUNT: Right.
HUNT: And - and most studies show collective bargaining doesn’t add much to budget costs. It is the - it is the wages and the benefits.
SCOTT: The benefits in our state.
HUNT: Right. So my question is, are Governor Walker, Governor Kasich making a mistake by focusing on collective bargaining rather than on wages and benefits?
SCOTT: Well, I think they’re - I think they’re absolutely doing the right thing. You know, what our issue in Florida is, is that, you know, our - our state workers don’t pay for anything into their pension plan. And we can’t afford that. It’s not fair to taxpayers.
HUNT: But should the issue be pensions and wages? Or should it be collective bargaining?
SCOTT: I think - I think it depends on the state. As you know, in our state, we have - we - in the constitution, they have collective bargaining. So if you didn’t have collective bargaining, would it be better for the state? Absolutely.
HUNT: You’ve also proposed banning labor union political contributions unless they get permission from their members, right?
SCOTT: Absolutely.
HUNT: Would you also ban corporations from spending political monies unless they get approval from shareholders?
SCOTT: You know, I haven’t thought about it that way.
HUNT: Why isn’t that the same thing?
SCOTT: I think it’s - it’s a legitimate issue. I think - I think the way - if you’re going to spend dollars for somebody, yeah, I mean, I think you ought to get - you know, people ought to know how you’re spending it. I think it ought to be transparent.
HUNT: So in Florida, maybe change the rules so you have - so corporations have to get approval from shareholders?
SCOTT: What - what I’m more focused on is, let’s be transparent. Let’s make sure everybody knows what they’re doing. So that would be my biggest issue, is transparency, the people know exactly how their money is being spent.
HUNT: But am I right, you’re saying you’d consider doing it for corporations as well as for unions?
(CROSSTALK)
SCOTT: - corporations.
HUNT: You’re not?
SCOTT: No.
HUNT: Why are they different than labor unions?
SCOTT: Well, I think, first off, it’s the - you’re - you’re competing with the private sector. The - when you’re dealing with state workers, it’s their money. It’s basically your tax dollar money. So I think it’s totally different.