More Labor,numbers and Wrestler

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

More Labor

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but the Argument of Collective bargaining and State workers continues to dominate the headlines. A couple more thoughts…

-The idea that the effort to reduce the cost to taxpayers of State Employee Health benefits doesn’t ring true. Is it an attack on the middle class that my employer raised health premiums each of the last four or five years? I don’t think so. The State is no different than any other corporation.

-To that point, the “study” released yesterday by the Iowa Policy Project is absurd. A group largely funded by Democrats telling us that State workers make less than their counterparts in the private sector? Dollars to dollars in salary that might be true in some cases, but State workers aren’t far behind. This study also claims that State worker benefits are more expensive than private company benefits we pay for. I know there’s some new math out there but unless I am paying less than zero for my health benefits…this is just wrong. Something in the neighborhood of 2/3 of state workers pay nothing for their Health benefits.

The study says when compared apples to apples private sector workers make more in total compensation than their State Worker Counterparts. Maybe that’s because their jobs are infinitely more secure.

It should be noted that the staff and the board of the organization that did this “study” are packed with Democrats and former or current leaders of Iowa Unions. Numbers can say a lot of things when you shuffle them around. And for the record I would not put any more stock in the Governor’s “study” of State worker benefits and salary that said State workers make more. I would use the common sense test of looking at the numbers. The average state worker makes anywhere from 45-55K depending on who you talk to. Add in no cost health benefits and I think a lot of people would say that’s not just a decent living…

-We came up with an interesting discussion about this in the studio this morning. What if Labor Unions provided Health insurance to members? Let them pool across State lines and form large groups among affiliated unions in each state. The cost would have to go down. Then give that worker the choice to Unionize or not. I bet the benefits of joining the Union would be pretty good. The State could also offer insurance to people who want out of the Unions. That Pool would probably be big too, and the cost to each employee might go down. Why not let the Unions handle this like the guilds to for actors and writers?

-Lastly, no one is attacking state workers. If you were the head of a corporation and your costs for Healthcare were going up what would you do? We the taxpayers are the CEO’s. Our company’s costs are going through the roof, and our workers don’t currently pay anything for their health benefits. Our corporation is hundreds of millions of dollars in the hole. Where are you going to find the money?


I told you I was watching Chicago’s Mayoral race with some interest yesterday. No surprise that Rahm Emanuel won. i think everyone knew that was coming. What surprised me was the fact that Carol Mosley Braun got 9% of the vote.

At one time in this race there were a handful of African American candidates, each with his/her own qualifications. At some point the group decided it needed to pool it’s support for the candidate who had the best chance of winning. They inexplicably decided on the former US Senator and Ambassador. She was polling in double digits and looked like she might even get into a run-off with Rahm. Then she started opening her mouth on a regular basis.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say there are hundreds of African American Men and Women in Chicago that are great leaders. How is it that none of them were on the ballot? It may not have changed the outcome. Maybe Chicago got the right guy. I just am left with the feeling that someone should archive the way this campaign played out for Mossley Braun and put it on TV next time someone suggests she’s the right candidate to lead an under served but significant portion of Chicago’s population.


So the young man who opted out of his wrestling match is on the Today show some time in the next few minutes. I’m interested to hear how he does. I read Rick Riley’s piece about his decision. I didn’t think it was “scathing” I thought it was pointed. If this kid gets to have religious objections to wrestling a girl, other people get to have an opinion about that decision. They don’t get to decide for him, but they do get to have an opinion.

Bret made another good point. If the Girls athletic Union says the women who play “boys” sports accept the risk of playing that sport…what about the boys they compete against? What if one of these girls got really hurt, through no fault of anyone…it just happens sometimes in football or wrestling. What if a kid broke his female opponent’s neck or injured her spine? The girl accepted the risk, but we may not be fully exploring the effect that kind of incident could have on the kid that injured her. Why shouldn’t he be able to opt out?

I thought it was worth considering.

Have a good day



  • Bev Ver Steegh

    Patrick, are you saying a boy would feel bad only if some how he broke a girls back wrestling? I think he would feel bad if he broke a boys back too, so should he opt out for fear of that?

  • Barbara

    Agree with Bev. It's somehow worse to injure your opponent if the opponent is a girl? It's a tragedy in any case. All competitors knowingly assume risk.

  • Brett


    No, I realize that a boy could break another boy's neck or cause injury, but what I was referring to is the explanation by Mike Dick and the Iowa Girls High School Athletic Union as to why girls are allowed to play boys sports and not the other way around.

    I believe he stated on the Murphy and Andy show and in a few other areas that they are admitting or conceding the fact that there is a physical difference leading to an increased risk of injury for co-ed high school sports. Girls are allowed to play boys sports because they are aware of the risk and accepting the fact that there is a greater chance of injury. And thus boys aren't allowed in girls sports because all girls aren't accepting that risk.

    My point is, if in fact there is a greater risk of injury for a girl going up against a boy, why can't the boy refuse taking on the increased risk of injuring said girl? It should work both ways without ridiculing the boy.

  • Anthill_Goddess

    I applaud the young man for standing by his convictions and his religious up-bringing…it could not have been an easy thing to do and the media coverage of his personal decision can't be an easy thing, either.
    Whether we agree with it or not, every single wrestler has the right to do what he did for whatever reason they choose…he didn't do anything all that unique other than his opponent was female.

    I really don't believe a word any of the politicians say…especially when it comes to union pay vs private sector. I also don't believe a word out of union leaders mouths. They're all a bunch of liars.

  • Brett

    Remember, it was the IGHSAU that says this risk exists.

    If it would have been me, yeah, I probably would have just gone ahead and wrestled, but I don't think it is right to make the kid into a villain for not wanting to go against his beliefs, or enter into a situation with an elevated risk of injuring an opponent, if there is such a risk.

  • John

    Love that Patrick!! Kudos to WHO for their great staff.
    State workers, unions, etc.
    I grew up in a blue-collar union house. My father was union, union steward and eventually the president of a UAW local. They served a good purpose and still can. I'm currently a state employee – but not a union member. I've seen all sides. Salaries? I can make more in the private sector, but that's not the rule. It's a mix, depending on your job! some here I know make nearly 30% more than they would in private industry, others, like myself, do not.
    So please don't lump us all together on this “state workers make more” thing! Granted, some do, but not everyone.
    Here's what your union can do for you – some I know are total loafers and law breakers, but can't be canned like in private industry. And some places in the state hired MORE because they need more help?? Make the ones that are here work! But wait, that's against union rules. They can surf the web, shop and sell on eBay, or worse and still keep a job.
    Our family agrees that Culver screwed up blindly approving the last raises. I'd GLADLY give up at least HALF of that next raise to keep our jobs. Same for health insurance – if I have to pay a percentage, so be it! Most other folks do – why not us?
    Look, union folks – when budgets are tight and money is a problem, something has to give in any other business, right??? You either cut costs, or LAY OFF folks. What would I rather do? Keep the job, and maybe give up a future raise or pitch in on insurance. It beats knocking on McDonald's doors looking for a job. You helped get the state into this pickle, time to buck up and help the state out.
    GM and Chrysler employees – union members, had to bargain, why not you?

Comments are closed.