re: #159 HappyWarrior

Wouldn’t surprise me. Hell, I was reading that Rand Paul’s predecessor in the Senate, Jim Bunning was instrumental in getting Martin Miller to head up the baseball players union during Bunning’s playing career. And of course Reagan was the president of SAG. Seems to me that a lot of this is “Unions for some but not for all.” It’s why they’ll bust teachers unions but won’t go after police and firefighters unions because they know there would be a huge backlash to it.

It’s not really about backlash so much as it about the electoral behavior of those different unions.

Teacher’s unions are Yellow Dog Democratic organization: Most of them would never endorse anyone other than a Democrat for office, and if they did it would be of a left-wing 3rd party like New York’s Working Families Party. Moreover, the demands for increased funding by teachers’ unions at times exceed what good sense would hold to be reasonable, thus imposing budget costs that infuriate fiscal conservatives. Thus to Republicans, including me, teacher’s unions (though not necessarily teachers themselves) are seen as a hostile force, whose neutralization would be good for the GOP electorally and in terms of public policy.

Police and fire fighter unions, by way of contrast, are ‘swing’ organizations and will often be willing to endorse either party based on who offers them more. Since Republicans can court and often win the endorsement of these unions, it makes more sense to support them instead of attack them. Police and fire union endorsements also allow republicans to play up their party’s image as the party of law and order and thus win over voters concerned about crime and lawlessness.

Thus the difference between teachers and police unions. Their different behavior causes the GOP to treat them differently.