I have read Rich Rifkin’s column on the union’s “avarice” a few times and, let me give credit to both Mr. Rifkin and Councilmember Sue Greenwald, who have been strong on the issue of the city budget and excessive compensation.
But I have to say, when I read Mr. Rifkin’s column this week, it read more like a campaign piece than I think it should have. By that, it was a bit too neatly tied together and too glowing in its assessment.
Let me give an example: “The avaricious plumbers, pipefitters, electricians and operating engineers wanted the residents of Davis to pay $200 million to build a new sewage treatment plant that they would operate. Only one person on the City Council stood in the way of their plan: Sue Greenwald.”
He continues: “The member of the council the unions hope to defeat successfully made the case that we did not need their $200 million plan. Greenwald called on top experts from UC Davis, and consequently the city learned we would do just fine with a $95.5 million plant.”
Mr. Rifkin writes, “That upset these unions. They are not used to losing political fights.”
The problem is that the unions are plenty used to losing political fights; they lose them all of the time. And moreover, they did not lose this fight.
The wastewater project and the surface water projects will be going forward, the city and the JPA are utilizing project labor agreements, and the building trades labor members will get their jobs.
Whether you believe we need water projects or not, one thing is clear: everyone is looking to cut the costs as much as possible.
Mr. Rifkin has been strong on cutting city costs, but he is also anti-union.
So he writes, “In concert with the firefighters and other public employees, the trade unions run the state Legislature. When the union bosses say jump, every Democrat (who cares about keeping his seat) responds, ‘How high?!’ “
That sounds good, but it’s actually not quite true. There are quite a few labor-supported bills that never even get out of committee.
There are quite a few Democratic legislators who are not particularly labor- or union-friendly.
My problem has not been with the unions, it has been with a few unions. Locally, it’s the firefighters, who earn on average $150,000 in total compensation and can retire at age 50 with nearly 90% of their final salary – that is what is a problem.
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, technically an association not a union (there is a difference), made up of prison guards, is in that privileged class as well.
On the other hand, the typical state employee does not make $150,000 a year, they do not get 3% at 50 upon retirement. They are lucky to get $30,000 by the end of their career and retire with 2% at 60.
Some of the worst offenders are non-unionized management who can retire at 55 with 2.7% and often make $100,000, $200,000 upon retirement, if not more.
Writes Mr. Rifkin, “Long ago, the unions got the legislators to require that all public works projects pay union wages and benefits, even if the contractor is non-union. That more than doubles the cost of labor.”
He adds, “Last year, the same unions pushed through a new law that requires ‘project labor agreements.’ That means the work rules they operate under will be set by the unions, including who may and may not get a job.”
Mr. Rifkin argues that this is some kind of avarice, but notably he never mentions how much these workers typically make. These are not the people who make $100,000 a year, most are lucky if they crack $40,000.
Mr. Rifkin is correct that the treatment plant is not the only lucrative project, as there may also be the surface water project.
Mr. Rifkin writes, “My own view is that sooner or later we will have to turn to the Sacramento River for our household water. But I think we probably can get a good project for less than the hundreds of millions of dollars city now wants. That is Sue Greenwald’s view, too.”
The question really is why is Sue Greenwald getting credit here, when a number of councilmembers put the brakes on the surface water project’s rate structure, after the agreement in the middle of the night proved to be untenable.
The WAC is likely going to make this project a lot more affordable in the long run, and Sue Greenwald deserves some credit for her piece of this, but a whole column seems over the top.
Mr. Rifkin writes, “Greenwald’s primary concern is that financing both projects at once will make Davis unaffordable to many current residents. The primary concern of the unions attacking her is to take as much of our money as they can and stuff it all in their greedy pockets.”
I agree that Ms. Greenwald has been correct about the financing of both projects. But to characterize the unions as greedy and attempting to stuff tons of money in their pockets is simply unfair.
We have gone through a horrendous economic period. Projects are rare. People are struggling to make their ends meet. The workers who work on the projects are not going to get rich; they may be able to put food on the table for their families. No reason to denigrate them. No reason to begrudge that.
I think the attack on Ms. Greenwald was misguided. But so too is the attack on all unions here.
Mr. Rifkin goes on to point out that the previous council majority made life difficult for Sue Greenwald. I agree with him on that point. The idea of preventing her from becoming mayor back in 2006 (not 2005 as Mr. Rifkin prints) was atrocious and they wisely held back.
Likewise, playing power games with appointments to regional boards was a bad precedent.
Mr. Rifkin writes, “The unions would have you believe that Sue Greenwald lacks the proper demeanor to serve on the City Council.”
The unions are not the only ones on that score. Many people in Davis believe that is true as well. However, just as importantly, many people like the idea of someone willing to stand up and fight, even when outnumbered. The voters should decide that issue and it will come down to personal preference.
Mr. Rifkin writes, “Yet notice that since the majority changed, the atmosphere on the council has, as well.”
That is certainly true. For six years, Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson would goad Sue Greenwald into blowing up. Too often, Ms. Greenwald took the bait. To a lesser extent Stephen Souza did the same, but without his council majority, he has certainly mellowed.
The atmosphere is better. But is not perfect and there are times when Sue Greenwald steps out of line and there have been times when the mayor has been a bit too quick to put a stop to it.
Mr. Rifkin concludes: “Greenwald is still there. Most of the rest left. Apparently it was not Sue’s behavior that was the problem.”
I think it is more accurate to say that it was not only Sue Greenwald’s behavior that was the problem.
But back to the union issue for a minute.
The piece was too neat, too tidy and omitted too many key facts that did not fit the neat story.
The leadership of the three unions that attacked Sue Greenwald should be criticized, the fact that they are trying to get jobs for their workers should not.
Again, we are not dealing with firefighters making $150,000, we are dealing with people who are lucky to ends meet at the end of each month. There is a big difference.
We need to decide our water projects based on our own needs and we need to attempt to contain costs. The unions have a different interest and that does not make their perspective illegitimate.
I believe we can have affordable projects – if that is indeed what we need – without doing it on the backs of those who will build those projects.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Didn’t Rifkin write that like Bob Dunning he wasn’t going to endorse and that gave him more objectivity? Seems he has become partisan in this election doing all he can to support Sue without an outright endorsement.
Rifkin is ferociously anti-union and since Sue has long been the most conservative voice on the council and city employees are unionized Rifkin’s support of Sue makes sense. The question remains does it make sense for the rest of us. Remember, the largest employer in the area is UC Davis, where most jobs have some sort of organized labor support. Davis is actually a big union town. If you are in a union remember when you vote solidarity forever!
[quote]LIVONIA, Mich. –
The 100-year-old Awrey Bakeries may close because union members have rejected another concession proposal from management.
Awrey Bakeries began in Detroit as a family business and moved to a production facility in Livonia in the 1970s.
The company, known for its windmill logo, fell on hard times and filed for bankruptcy protection in 2005. An investment group purchased it in bankruptcy, but in recent years demanded concessions from unionized workers to keep the company going.
The latest demand, for a $2 per hour pay cut and the loss of some jobs, was rejected this week by union members.
Tom Kurras is a union member who says workers have been giving back for the past five years. He said this demand was just too much.
“We’re just done. I think we’re done. I think the vote was unanimous, I hope it was,” Kurras said.
Lillian Triplett was one of the customers at the Awrey outlet store Wednesday. She said she hopes the bakery will not shut down.
“I don’t want that to happen. We lose enough jobs as it is in this area, so no, I don’t want it to go away,” Triplett said.
Awrey’s management has talked of shutting down the Livonia facility and moving production to a facility it owns in Indiana, but there has been no comment from management since the union vote was reported[/quote]
[quote] One of those workers, when asked about the vote, said he would rather see Awrey close because he would make more money collecting unemployment benefits. He declined to be named.[/quote]
Public-sector unions need to disappear. From a social and economic perspective, the damage they cause far outweighs the good they do. They only serve as a legalized political wage extortion mechanism for a small minority of citizens. They do this at the expense of all the rest of the citizens who are practically powerless to prevent the damage done.
Private-sector unions will kill themselves as they bankrupt their employers one by one.
[quote]We need to decide our water projects based on our own needs and we need to attempt to contain costs. The unions have a different interest and that does not make their perspective illegitimate.
I believe we can have affordable projects – if that is indeed what we need – without doing it on the backs of those who will build those projects.[/quote]
Nicely said!
“Mr. Rifkin argues that this is some kind of avarice, but notably he never mentions how much these workers typically make. These are not the people who make $100,000 a year, most are lucky if they crack $40,000.”
I would agree that some associations and unions have gone too far in securing high salaries and benefits for their members. Jeff and Rich have been quick to label this as avarice. I have two objections to this position.
1) This generalization is inapplicable to the unions that are attempting to protect low wage workers from falling into poverty, or near poverty
despite working hard for very low pay. Jeff Boone has claimed erroneously that this no longer occurs in this country. While it may not occur
in your business Jeff, I guarantee you that it exists for those who provide service in the food industry, janitorial services, child care services
and other low compensated jobs. If you consider it avaricious to want to be able to earn enough to feed, clothe and house your family, then I
agree. If this is not your belief, then I would not paint all unions with the “demonization” brush. I know this because I see these folks as they
go on and off insurance based on the decisions of their employers to hire and fire them without job protections and by the unilateral decisions
of their employers to select health plans that are not adequate to cover the needs of their workers. I see this daily.
2) My second objection is what I see as hypocrisy. Both Rich and Jeff point to avariciou ness on the part of the relatively low paid union workers
while conveniently failing to consider that it might be considered avaricious to want to protect one’s multimillion dollar income from taxation at
similar rates to those of the less well compensated. A recent interview I heard on NPR comes to mind. In the words of a former, Wall Street
trader about why he had given up his very lucrative career, he explained that what he had benn doing was not creating any wealth, but merely
betting on how to most advantageously shuffle, or transfer it from place to place for his own advantage He felt he could not explain to his child
when she became old enough to understand that his life’s contribution to society had been to take chances with other people’s money.
His words, not mine.
So is there a “class war” going on here as Jeff claims ? Although I think “war” is an over used and overblown rhetorical device, I agree there is conflict. But who is the more greedy, the couple who are working double shifts in order to provide food, clothing, housing…..and yes, how audacious, medical care for their family……or the couple who can afford multiple homes, full time nannies, cooks, housekeepers, and still claim how difficult a job parenting is and that they are being “over taxed”. Well, if this is a war, it is pretty clear which side is winning !
[i]”So is there a “class war” going on here as Jeff claims ? Although I think “war” is an over used and overblown rhetorical device, I agree there is conflict. But who is the more greedy, the couple who are working double shifts in order to provide food, clothing, housing…..and yes, how audacious, medical care for their family……or the couple who can afford multiple homes, full time nannies, cooks, housekeepers, and still claim how difficult a job parenting is and that they are being “over taxed”. Well, if this is a war, it is pretty clear which side is winning !”[/i]
Apparently, from this, nothing is really clear.
Class wars have always been a source of politicking in this country. However, after the politician was elected, he settled in to his role respecting the fundamental economic principles of this country. The difference today is that we have a sitting President and members of Congress actually governing against those principles. It is breathtaking. It also justifies the use of the word “war” given the importance to prevent the incremental destruction of the most successful country ever on God’s green earth.
Greed can be defined as the pursuit of self-interest lacking a sufficient moral basis. The accumulation of wealth through success in business ventures does not justify the label of greed any more than does the accumulation of taxes levied against that wealth for others pursuing success in redistributive social policies.
An investment banker that advises clients to take unnecessary and poorly explained portfolio risks primarily to increase his wealth is absolutely behaving in a way that can and should be labeled as greedy. Conversely, a college professor offering minimal classroom and office time to students while he pursues more recognition for research publication is also demonstrating greedy behavior. Lastly, the union employee joining to protest and strike for wages and benefits that exceed the value in the free marketplace for his job and skill-level is also being greedy.
The key is having a sufficient moral basis for behavior pursuing self-interest.
Were medwoman and David Greenwald have a problem, is that they have created an economic line of classism that excuses those below the line for their behavior, but then demands we aggressively punish those above the line.
Other that the obvious problem with classism in general, medwoman and David also forget or ignore the missing binders to economic class in this country. American economic class is dynamic. Incomes are mobile. Poor people become well-off and some become rich. Wealthy take risks and become less well-off and some become poor. Most wealthy in this country were once poor, or come from families that only one or two generations ago were poor. The main differences between a poor person and a well-off person is that the well-off person only has to remember the depressing feelings from once being poor; and he knows the secret that being poor is only a temporary condition constrained by the mind and imagination.
How does all of this connect to the discussion about unions?
If you are a skilled employee and you don’t like your management, the organization you work for, your pay, your benefit, your coworkers… any of these things, you are free to go get another job. If you are unskilled or low-skilled, you are likely also low income, and you have less opportunity for job mobility. The reason is that the ladder to economic prosperity is shaped like a pyramid where there is a lot more competition for jobs at the bottom.
The problem with unionization is that it locks people into jobs they should leave, and (like entitlements do) it locks low-skilled people into a situation where they stop striving to climb the ladder of economic prosperity.
As someone with lots of experience dealing with state and federal labor laws, there is absolutely no need for unions to protect workers’ rights in this state. Employees are sufficiently covered… the laws and regulations are almost punitive to employers, and over-protective of workers. Unions do nothing for their members except secure eventually unsustainable wages and benefits. This first traps the union employee into having to stay at the job since no other private company can pay as much. It prevents them from changing careers for the same reason. It provides a negative change-incentive fence around a virtual plantation of economy slavery. It creates a negative and hostile work environment of a growing population of unionize employees that really do not like their job, but will not quit because of the money. Lastly, it ensures that they will be out of a job at some point in the future because unions cause the employing organizations to eventually fail.
I have a song in my head: “Unions, huh, yeah… what are they good for… absolutely nothing”
The biggest problem in your treatise jeff is the assumption that we have fixed economic principles that guide this nation. What we really have are competing economic principles that create the a very narrow but defined demarcation between two competing schools of thought and our nations policies vary overtime meandering in a small space between the two.
Compared to most places, the differences are small though they are fought bitterly at times. We see the rhetoric against the current president with little to match it.
The other point that Jeff, that you either do not seem to understand or misrepresent is that I don’t see this in class warfare terms. What I see is that unions have a legitimate purpose which is (A) to defend the rights of workers in workplace disputes and (B) to represent the interests of workers in collective bargaining arrangements.
The proper perspective in which unions legitimately operate is securing those rights and interests. When unions have been able to allow their members not only get a fair wage, but an overly generous wage, it becomes a gift of public funds and therefore violates the fundamental purpose of the union itself.
The union process only works when there are equal or somewhat equal but opposing forces and the give and take results in a relatively fair arrangement of both sides.
When firefighters are able to get $150,000, retire at 50, early 80 to 90 percent of their income upon retirement while the city is forced to gut services and layoff other employees, all semblance of balance has been lost.
The union is no longer acting as a union, but rather a raider, a marauder, stealing public funds to enrich their members – the balance is out.
[i]”What we really have are competing economic principles that create the a very narrow but defined demarcation between two competing schools of thought and our nations policies vary overtime meandering in a small space between the two.”[/i]
A space a yard wide and several miles deep and getting deeper. Both sides had responsibility for digging the hole; but now one side wants to start filling it, and the other wants to keep digging it deeper. With this polarized position, the space might as well be several miles wide.
[i]”What I see is that unions have a legitimate purpose which is (A) to defend the rights of workers in workplace disputes and (B) to represent the interests of workers in collective bargaining arrangements.”[/i]
(A) is what HR departments do in combination with labor laws. And frankly do a much better job.
(B) is completely unnecessary because if employees don’t like what the company/organization pays, they can quit and go work somewhere else. This is just legalized wage extortion that benefits a small minority at the expense of everyone else.
Unions, although once useful and helpful, are currently unnecessary and harmful… and have been for at least 30 years.
[i]”I’m not particularly interested in this large picture. What I am interested in more is the interplay here locally.”[/i]
Unfortunately it is all connected. Broke state and broke cities… and greedy unions controlling much of the purse.
“The main differences between a poor person and a well-off person is that the well-off person only has to remember the depressing feelings from once being poor; and he knows the secret that being poor is only a temporary condition constrained by the mind and imagination. “
As you have stated previously, being poor is not necessarily associated with feelings of depression. I am surprised to see you make that association now. I was not depressed when I was poor, and I am not depressed now that I am well off.
Being poor is frequently not a temporary condition and in our country is frequently associated with conditions not of one’s own choice. People under crushing debt because of the illness of a family member for example. People who lose their jobs in an economy such as the current one where the availability of another job may be a right wing myth rather than a reality. I fail to see how you can correlate your statements about how Obama is destroying the country and the economy and still maintain that all anyone has to do if dissatisfied with their current job is to quit and go get another. You have not yet explained how this can be the case in the terrible state you are currently attributing to the Democrats and unions.
And back to David’s point. I agree completely that all unions are not equal in this and should not be described as such.
Jeff:[i] “”I’m not particularly interested in this large picture. What I am interested in more is the interplay here locally.”
Unfortunately it is all connected. Broke state and broke cities… and greedy unions controlling much of the purse.[/i]
I believe you argued the opposite on another thread just yesterday.
[i]”As you have stated previously, being poor is not necessarily associated with feelings of depression.”[/i]
Periodic depressed feelings resulting from the difficulty paying bills. I didn’t mean that it should justify chronic depression.
I have relatives that are happy poor. They don’t want all the stress that goes along with competing for prosperity. However, they also don’t accept public assistance. I was once happy and poor. I was also a bit depressed at times when I could not readily pay my bills. That feeling was part of my motivation to strive to make a better living. Good thing I didn’t get a buch of free stuff from the government at those times, otherwise I might have not been as motivated.
[i]”People under crushing debt because of the illness of a family member for example.”[/i]
Agree with this one. But then we start to argue what the solution is. I say affordable private health insurance. You say… I am guessing government assistance to pay for the health care.
[i]”People who lose their jobs in an economy such as the current one…
“I fail to see how you can correlate your statements about how Obama is destroying the country and the economy”[/i]
You sort of answered your own conundrum here.
Obama and his handlers in the Democrat party knew that their ticket back to power was to exploit tragic human circumstances. Economies are cyclical, and both parties know to exploit a downturn when it happens on the opposition’s watch. In my opinion, the Democrats were so bent on achieving single-payer, government-run healthcare in this country (a goal strengthened by their bleeding heart need to honor the death of Ted Kennedy… the main Congressional dreamer of single-payer healthcare) – and because they knew anger over the down economy would better serve them in this – that they did not address the economic problems with the necessary focus, urgency and immediacy. They used a class war to win power, and then screwed up fixing the economy (while only managing a dog of a healthcare bill), so the only option for them was to stay on the same message of class divisiveness. It is the lack of economic recovery (i.e., lack of jobs) combined with a growing social entitlement state and the constant message of political divisiveness that is destroying the county, IMO.
Jeff: I do find it amusing when the [i]greed is good[/i] suddenly find God when it comes to unions.
But I still have to question the premise. How exactly are unions greedy here? Because they advocate for projects that will give their members work? Because they seek wages to enable their members to put food on the table? Where is the horrible crime here.
As I wrote, unlike some people, I don’t attribute greed to just the accumulation of wealth. Wealth is just the award for success at some venture for trading value for consideration. Employees trade value (the value of their skills and labor) for consideration (their pay) that can be used to build wealth.
I don’t have any problem with people pursuing their own self-interest by trading value for consideration in a competitive, free, honest, fair, legal and open system. Wealth acquired through monopolistic means can even be considered greed-free if based on a fair-market price/value exchange.
Unions seek consideration for their members in excess of the free-market rate paid for comparable value. They don’t stop at market value… they don’t care about market value… they seek to acquire ALL they can. In this they epitomize greed.
Greed manifests in non-monetary pursuits also. In any case where a person peruses self-interest without sufficient moral compass, I can define it as greed. In other words: “I want mine and to hell with the impacts to others.” This is exactly what the unions do… especially the public employee unions.
The key word there is seek, there is no problem with seeking, the problem is when the other side gives them more than they are worth. To me, market is an overly suppressed value anyway, my problem is when corrupted processes allow excesses. I’ve named several where I believe that is the case. But I think those are largely exceptions, most employees are paid and compensated in a fair manner.
[quote]”I want mine and to hell with the impacts to others.” This is exactly what the unions do… especially the public employee unions. [/quote]
This is what everyone does. When the system works properly, they do not succeed in gaining unfair advantages.
[i]”This is what everyone does. When the system works properly, they do not succeed in gaining unfair advantages.”[/i]
Moral people, and moral systems, do not pursue their self-interest at the expense of causing material harm to others. There are checks and balances in the free market (including the free labor market). They are not perfect – no system is ever perfect – but they work pretty well with a touch of laws and regulations to keep competition fair and strong. If you are a bad operator unreasonably materially harming others, you will usually and eventually be held accountable with failure. Did you read my posted story about the Detroit bakery? Unions will kill their host company to get their way. They don’t care what is harmed. They have a labor monopoly and exploit it.
Unions – especially public employee unions – are not needed, are harmful to us all. Unions do little good for their members unless you support union employees making significantly more than what the market pays, at the expense of other public programs and services.
I would argue that there are not nearly the checks and balances in the free market (whatever that really is) and I would argue that there are checks and balances in place in the collective bargaining world as well. The problem occurs when management does not act as the effective brake or counterforce.
I met with the head of the teacher’s union in Davis last week. What was striking to me is that that union are bunch of teachers, they spend their day in the classroom, and they do this on the side. Against them is the professional negotiator hired by the district.
You’ve made most of these groups out to be something that they are not.
Just as the whole is greater than the some of its parts, the individuals are not necessarily complicit in the deeds of their mob.
There are copious checks and balances in the free market; but I don’t think you understand them or else you do not value them. Darwin did.
I do agree with you that management should be the counter force, but frankly you do not have a current example for where this is working well. I certainly do not. So, I suppose we can just blame 100% of management for being incompetent. Or, maybe there is somthing else wrong…?
It is damn difficult enough to run a successful company in this hyper-competitive global economy without having to deal with a labor force united against you. If working conditions were still an issue in this country, then it would be a price management SHOULD pay. However, those problems are enough gone and we have enough employee protection laws and enforcement mechanisms on the books that unions are no longer required. We have moved one quite a bit since Norma Ray time.
Today, unions are a HUGE drag on management time and attention that would/should otherwise be used for the constant necessary strategic planning and tactical execution. I would NEVER work as a manager for a union shop because instead of working at the front-end of the ship to navigate the stormy waters of competition, I would be stuck in the hold trying to make a mob of chronic needy employees feel artificially good about themselves before they would agree to bilge the water that would sink the ship.
The teachers (the good teachers) would be MUCH better off in a free-market system that compensated them fairly based on skill and demonstrated performance. Good teachers would make more money, bad teachers would make less money. So, in effect, the teachers union is only propping up the compensation of the bad teachers at the expense of the good teachers.
People are emotional creatures, that by God’s or Darwin’s or Maslow’s design, have needs. As a professional manager, I am often required to coach employees through their confusion expecting work to satisfy needs that work has no business satisfying… things that the employee can only solve herself/himself. A mob of employees seeking the same would cause me to exit stage left.
Think of it this way… what if students could unionize and demand of teachers the hours of class, the material, the tests, the grading methods? How do you think teachers would like having to run/manage their own class with a mob of students threatening to walk off unless the teachers complied with their demands?
[i]Just as the whole is greater than the some of its parts[/i]
Whole is greater than the [b]sum[/b] of its parts. Geesch.
Don: See the following…
“David: I’m not particularly interested in this large picture. What I am interested in more is the interplay here locally.”
Jeff: Unfortunately it is all connected. Broke state and broke cities… and greedy unions controlling much of the purse.
Don: I believe you argued the opposite on another thread just yesterday. [/i]
That was David’s argument I was responding to. I have always addressed the union problem as a larger state and national issue impacting us at the local level.
David, you’re not the first one to observe that Rich’s column reads like a campaign mailer on behalf of Sue Greenwald. But consider the timing: She happened to be at the intersection of his continuing exposure of union over-reaching and destructive actions.
While it wasn’t necessary to completely absolve her of responsibility for her behavior and her [i]modus operandi [/i]when dealing with her colleagues, it’s understandable as we’re reflecting on the nasty flyer.
Rich’s column probably more than made up for the votes she might have lost due to the unions’ campaign piece.
If you’re correct with your seemingly unfounded election guesses and Sue is reelected, maybe the other council members will give her some positive reinforcement if she sincerely tries a new approach.
Her ability to question authority can be helpful. If she can combine it with some efforts to build consensus instead reveling in a constant, negative, minority status, she’ll be a more productive and valuable member of the council.
If you’re correct with your seemingly unfounded election guesses and Sue is reelected, maybe the other council members will give her some positive reinforcement if she sincerely tries a new approach.”
Like the new improved Nixon in 68 suggesting that she will be better this time is foolish. Why should she if she can be get re-elected despite herself.
There’s nothing wrong with unions or with willing workers organizing.
What is wrong is the rigged conditions that the public employees have bribed legislators to set up for them.
For example, forcing employees to be in a union or to pay dues to the union when they don’t want to be members is an abhorrent practice. Most people in Davis don’t know that this practice, which is more suited to a fascist or totalitarian society, is commonplace right here in Davis.
The examples Rifkin writes about are similarly rigged.
JR, I agree on the rigging part although business interests do it in reverse. You can opt out of the union, the irony is nonmembers get the same rights, salary and benefits that members do.
[quote]You can opt out of the union[/quote]
But you can’t opt out of paying dues to the union. Hard to believe, I know, but true.
[quote] business interests do it in reverse[/quote]
Very very true. Big corporations are no less enemies of free markets than unions. Both manipulate and pay off legislators to extract excess funds from taxpayers.
That’s why the most rational way to achieve a low corruption government is to keep government as small as possible. Less pie to hand out makes for less corruption.
Actually you, but it isn’t straight forward.
There was a time you could keep government small, society is too big and the world too complex to do that
Jeff
“However, those problems are enough gone and we have enough employee protection laws and enforcement mechanisms on the books that unions are no longer required. We have moved one quite a bit since Norma Ray time.”
Repeating this as though people do not get fired on a regular basis, and as though everyone has a job just waiting for them to move into if they have a bad manager does not make it the truth. I would love for you to be able to come to my clinic and see just how many women there are who have had to put off self care, sometimes for years because they do not earn enough to pay for insurance or their job, which they cannot leave because there are not other jobs available for them, does not offer adequate insurance. I would be fine with affordable insurance offered by the private sector if there were no such things as refusal for pre existing conditions, or recision for trumped up reasons such as forgetting to write down a diagnosis of acne 20 years previously. And yes, I have seen this happen in the world of private insurance. To pretend that there is no need for unions today and that private insurance takes care of those enrolled in their programs when a serious illness occurs is to simply not be aware of or to deny what actually occurs in the ” free market.”
You go Medwoman don’t hold back you are on fire!
[quote]There was a time you could keep government small, society is too big and the world too complex to do that[/quote]
On the contrary, new technology and a richer society make it more possible than ever before to lower the burdens of government.
You go J. R. Don’t stop. You are right on!
By size I mean scope not necessarily government employees. I don’t think you are going to see a much smaller government. And I don’t think society is that richer than it was
[quote]I don’t have any problem with people pursuing their own self-interest by trading value for consideration in a competitive, free, honest, fair, legal and open system. [/quote]Yet, the public system precludes this… in the public sector, the difference between the ‘best and brightest’, and the “I’ll do the minimum” tends to be obscure. I suspect Mr Boone would like to see the ‘best and brightest’ in the public sector paid slightly over minimum wage. The private sector is allowed to compensate the more valuable employees more highly.