tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post5395934069339682641..comments2023-10-24T11:23:31.580-04:00Comments on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Now Add More Mr. Nice Guy - How To Oppose Public Sector Unions Without Opposing Public Sector WorkersWilliam A. Jacobsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16433685588536441422noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-82807006587373267892011-04-10T13:08:04.514-04:002011-04-10T13:08:04.514-04:00This is the same mistake as those who believe ther...This is the same mistake as those who believe there are innocent civilians in war. No war has ever been won without killing enough civilians to halt the production of war. You will not stop the unions until there isn't enough members to make it worth the fight.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07822757512704946590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-83158781536472078762011-04-09T17:21:19.549-04:002011-04-09T17:21:19.549-04:00A governemnt emplyee will be working with the peop...A governemnt emplyee will be working with the people who run the union for the next 5, 10, or 40 years depending. Even if they strongly object to the union, unless they want to be a social pariah for that period of time, shut up and and even show up at union events. The support in the bargning units deppending on union, work place, etc is less, often much less than 100%.<br /><br />Many would like to be rid of the albatross.hank_F_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09851295792702162861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-26670983342857087682011-04-08T14:12:40.549-04:002011-04-08T14:12:40.549-04:00Excellent post! They win the first battle because...Excellent post! They win the first battle because we let them frame the debate with the terms: "Collective Bargaining Rights" is a perfect example and then we have to work twice as hard to win the war. We should re-frame the debate with proper terms: 1) Public unions are a derivative of soviet collectivist statism. 2) It is not bargaining if the other side (the tax payer is not at the table). 3) It is not a "right" and it diminishes the real rights guaranteed by our constitution by naming everything we "want" as a right. So let's all call it what it IS (in honor of this first battle in Wisconsin): Collectivist Badgering Fight! :-)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07757009734832107410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-51487027402782855532011-04-08T14:02:23.119-04:002011-04-08T14:02:23.119-04:00One point that LukeHandCool touches on is signific...One point that <b>LukeHandCool</b> touches on is significant -- that there is no profit motive in a bureaucracy. But there are other motives at work that tend to work against reform that results in cost savings, including resistance at several levels because of entrenched interests. By no means is it just a rank-and-file level problem.<br /><br />For example, during a period of time I spent overseeing a detailed planning effort in a large state government bureaucracy (including leading a team of participating directors, managers and supervisors whose offices and employees were each going to be affected to a greater or lesser degree by the implementation of the plan) it became very clear to me that <em>"getting into someone's ricebowl,"</em> as one friend used to jokingly put it, was certain to make you enemies.<br /><br />And in my experience, it nearly always resulted in some form of "back-channel" effort being undertaken to try to torpedo the planning effort. <br /><br />One of the major points of focus of that planning effort was merely to encourage thousands of businesses, who were required to annually file for licenses, to do so using electronic filing.<br /><br />One Director in the DMV had a team of keyboard folks who for years had the task of taking the filled-in license applications that were mailed to Trenton, and to keyboard that licensing information into the State system. That kept the team busy only during a few brief periods each year. <br /><br />For the rest of the year, this Director was able to <em>"farm them out"</em> or lend them from time to time, to others in the Department as similar situations might arise regarding licensure or similar keyboarding needs.<br /><br />He hated the plan, especially the idea of encouraging the electronic filing of the license applications, not only because it eliminated any justification he had for maintaining this large team of people for "his" work, but also because he thought it diminished his power within the organization. He would not be able to continue making other sections of DMV dependent on him.<br /><br />It didn't matter to him that there was a persistent error rate from the keyboarders, some of which would resurface at some point in problems for businesses that they had had no part in creating. Nor did it matter that there was no fiscal justification for the employment during large parts of the year, or that it would save the state money to implement the program. He fought it tooth and nail. <br /><br />I personally witnessed the same kind of fight from the DMV bureaucracy on an even larger scale, when the state undertook to allow people to renew their motor vehicle registrations "on-line." Several managers and directors in the DMV bureaucracy tried to fight it at every turn, and for similar unjustifiable reasons.<br /><br />Yet when the motor vehicle re-registration program was implemented using a private contractor, the after-service surveys indicated that the approval rate for the change was 99.6 percent!Trochilushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07661310034696479920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-76743267228958876292011-04-08T12:22:36.216-04:002011-04-08T12:22:36.216-04:00Excellent points, Matthew. But good luck on this ...Excellent points, Matthew. But good luck on this one:<br /><br />"... but seniority is neither fair to quality employees nor an effective way to encourage good work. Merit should play a large role in pay, promotion, and retention."<br /><br />The very nature of a public employee union--where no profit motive is involved--often makes for management that couldn't care less about merit. For supervisors, it's all about not making any waves (so even the most egregiously imcompetent and/or lazy workers won't file grievances to impede the supervisors' entrance into the gravy train's cushier dining cars).<br /><br />Someone who wouldn't last a day in a private sector job can easily last 30 years in a comfortable public sector position and retire in comfort at 55.LukeHandCoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14050153852654024997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-83759973502517479482011-04-08T10:51:17.062-04:002011-04-08T10:51:17.062-04:00And herein lies a certain conundrum. In supporting...And herein lies a certain conundrum. In supporting the union membership while countering the union leadership, we must ask, how is it that the unions are the bogeymen and yet, the workers who make up the union are the good guys? Is this not a false distinction? By doing this are we not simply continuing to look past the obvious fact that the workers seem to be fully behind the leadership whenever they employ their unsavory tactics used to accomplish their objectives? If we carry on as though the membership are simply the docile sheep who are passive followers of the evil leadership, we allow ourselves to become victims of one of the most pervasive manipulation tactics employed. This tactic is called, good cop – bad cop. By making the distinction between the membership and the leadership, are we not inadvertently allowing the membership (good cops) to avoid responsibility for the unsavory actions of the leadership (bad cops)?<br /><br />While the people have held public unions of policemen and firemen in high regard, I would submit that much of this is due to the fact that heretofore, the public has been largely ignorant of the exorbitant pensions, and the underhanded tactics used to fleece the public, as overtime is piled on prior to retirement in order to inappropriately enrich the pension recipients at the expense of the people. As the people become more aware of the games being played to separate them from their money, I believe they will soon be making a distinction between how much they like these people and how much they want to continue to enrich them to the detriment of everyone else. These workers are nice people, and they are doing a great job of providing for the health and life safety of the public, and they should be properly compensated and receive a level of respect that is commensurate with the fine work they do, but, lets maintain some level of sanity. Is it right that these people receive exorbitant salaries and pensions while the rest of us are forced to eat buckwheat cakes for the balance of our lives in order to support all of this? How about a little bit of parity?<br /><br />I believe terms like “collective bargaining” should be parsed and we should not continue to allow ourselves to be manipulated with such deceptive terminology. If the power of public sector unions is indeed built on a network of coercive laws and policies, why don’t we start calling it what it is and let both the unions and their membership defend their tactics. Can we simply describe things in sufficient detail to give people an accurate idea about what’s really going on behind the façade? How is it that we must develop strategies and tactics that obscure the truth in order to expose the truth?<br /><br />I believe we can reform the system by putting out clear facts and by making honest representations that regular folks can easily understand. We don’t need to over think all of this. What we now have is intolerable and unsustainable, and everyone understands that. If the union membership is isolated from the negative actions of the union leadership, we simply allow them to avoid any responsibility whatsoever for reform. What benefit does anyone derive from that? How about we stop trying to be Mr.Nice Guy and we now confront issues as honest and straight forward people who are simply at the end of our limits of toleration? <br /><br />In America, constituents are indeed responsible for the actions of their leaders. We do not live in a monarchic society. Lets all provide the union membership with every opportunity to defend the actions of their leaders as we hold them responsible. If they want to live by the leadership – let them also die (metaphorically speaking) by the leadership. Lets not isolate them from the negative consequences of their own actions and provide them with an out that would continue to allow them to avoid both criticism and responsibility. To do so will only further obscure the truth. Let the union membership bear the responsibility for their actions. And let the public know exactly what is going on and exactly who is behind it all.John Garganohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353874026632744620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-64844698293803667912011-04-08T10:27:02.993-04:002011-04-08T10:27:02.993-04:00Wherever he appears, Governor Christie continues t...Wherever he appears, Governor Christie continues to push forward on that approach of praising the teachers who do well while simultaneously reserving his criticism for the <b>NJEA</b> and the union leaders. <br /><br />And <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_tuY62-yaY" rel="nofollow">he persists in putting that message out there</a>, while the Democrats and their acolytes continue to press a contrary message. Having a channel on <em><b>YouTube</b></em> has literally become a necessity of modern politics!<br /><br />I worked on the staff of the legislature in Trenton for many, many years, and I can tell you that public sector unions, especially the <b>NJEA</b> literally owned the place, regardless of who was in charge. <br /><br />Of course, for the lion's share of the past 40 years or so, the General Assembly in the legislature has been completely controlled by Democrats, with a brief exception of a few years back during the 90s. And although it was "tied" once [20 - 20] for a short while, the State Senate has otherwise been in Democrat hands throughout. <br /><br />Pouring more and more money into the coffers of persistently failing schools has been a way of life for decades in New Jersey. <br /><br />Court-driven mandates have contributed considerably to the problem as well throughout that period. Their rulings have focused on state-mandated funding to be poured primarily into the inner-city areas over the years, and have thereby contributed heavily to statewide driving property taxes through the roof.Trochilushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07661310034696479920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1522121129844880066.post-88236534314299798902011-04-08T09:21:32.585-04:002011-04-08T09:21:32.585-04:00Great piece. Excellent political strategy for fram...Great piece. Excellent political strategy for framing the public union debate, particularly in blue and purple states.dave vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03162727760872492396noreply@blogger.com