Chris Powell: Conn. doesn’t Need More Meat; why unionize government?

MANCHESTER, Conn.

Environmentalists think that raising cattle for meat and milk harms the environment. Animal-rights advocates and vegetarians think that eating creatures is immoral. They have a point, but the political struggle has not been going their way, especially since the world always confronts hunger and famine somewhere. 

So eventually the General Assembly may pass and the governor may sign legislation to let farmers in the state raise and butcher rabbits and sell their meat for food. The argument is that some people would like locally butchered rabbit meat, rabbit meat is a staple in some cultures, and raising rabbits for meat might help sustain some farms as agriculture is declining.

It's a weak argument.

Rabbits are said to be the third most popular companionate animals after dogs and cats. Rabbits have greater intelligence than many animals, they have a social nature, they can be trained to some extent, and they show loyalty to their owners. While some cultures eat rabbits, some also eat dogs and cats, and federal law prohibits the commercial slaughter and sale of dogs and cats for meat, presumably because of their suitability as pets.

So why shouldn’t rabbits be protected against raising and slaughter for food as dogs and cats are?

It’s not as if the country doesn’t have enough meat. Huge amounts of beef, pork, poultry, and fish are produced commercially. Nor does the country lack for the killing of sentient creatures and its coarsening of the culture. State government doesn’t need the expense it would incur with the commercial farming of rabbits for meat -- inspection by the Agriculture Department of the farms and slaughtering facilities.

People in Connecticut hungry for rabbit meat can buy it from out of state via the internet or hunt the creatures themselves in the countryside, as they can hunt and butcher deer. But when there is plenty to eat and no overpopulation of annoying or dangerous wild animals, killing without necessity should be opposed.

xxx

Having just shrugged off his inability to compel state government employees to return to their normal workplaces, a consequence of the collective bargaining that hobbles state and municipal government in Connecticut and increases its costs, Gov. Ned Lamont should note the remarkable reform just enacted in Utah.  

The Beehive State has prohibited collective bargaining for government employees.

This doesn’t mean that state and municipal employees in Utah can’t organize and agitate about their compensation and working conditions. It doesn’t mean that government in Utah won’t pay attention to the desires and grievances of its employees. It means only that the agitation by Utah's state and municipal employees won’t have the support of collective- bargaining law -- that state and municipal government won’t have to recognize and negotiate with unions formed by their employees.

That is, government in Utah will be free to put the public interest first in public administration and not be like Connecticut, where the public works for the government instead of the other way around -- where the governor lacks the authority to order state employees to return to their workplaces.

Of course, since Connecticut’s government employee unions control the majority political party, no serious reforms for government efficiency are likely here. But Utah’s example should prompt a few brave legislators in Connecticut to ask some critical questions.

How exactly is the public interest in Connecticut served by collective bargaining for government employees and the state’s binding arbitration law, which makes the union interest equal to the public interest when government employee compensation and working conditions are determined? 

How does the public benefit from collective bargaining’s constant evisceration of workplace discipline? 

How does the public benefit from the political machine that state law establishes and subsidizes with government employees to work against the public interest, as when union officials who are nominally state employees are paid by the state to do union work and politicking instead?  

Or is the main purpose of collective bargaining for government employees in Connecticut just to keep their political party in power? 

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years (CPowell@cox.net).