Saturday, February 26, 2011
Unions
My friend Erin asked me what I thought about everything that's going on in Wisconsin. I have to admit-- I haven't been following the mess there as closely as I should be. Probably because union workers protesting their "right" to get more money always annoys me. Actually, unions in general annoy me. I understand that when they were first created, they served a legitimate purpose. And there are certainly times when the worker needs to be protected. But I'm not convinced that every union is doing this.
I should explain where I got these opinions from. While I was in college, I spent most of my summers working for Airborne Express, up until the time they were bought out by DHL. My last summer there, my job was to clean out the corporate offices as they prepared to move to Florida, where DHL's headquarters were located. Since my work wasn't very hard and my boss was very busy, she encouraged me to take my time as I sorted out which documents needed to simply be thrown away and which had information on them that required that they be shredded. So in order to work slowly, I often read the documents I was sorting. One of the drawers I cleared out was filled with correspondence between the CEO of the company and the Teamster's Union.
Now, if you know anything about the Teamster's Union, you're probably aware that they are the most thuggish of all unions. So maybe I shouldn't have been surprised by the letters I found. But I was. The letters from the president of the Teamster's Union threatened to shut down the company at Christmas time, talking about little kids not getting their Christmas presents. And this was just because it was time to renegotiate contracts! Something that happens on a regular basis! He was doing this mostly just as a way of flexing his muscles, proving that he was more powerful than the CEO. It was slimy and mean and completely unnecessary.
In direct contrast, I also found instructions from Airborne on how to keep your stations union free. Thinking this might explain why the teamster's were so angry with the corporation, I read these closely as well. The shocking advice I found was mostly along the lines of, "Listen to your employees, try to keep them happy" and genuinely good and caring suggestions like that.
I'm glossing over a lot here, but hopefully you're getting the idea. After that summer, the conclusion I had to come to was that Corporate America was usually much more interested in what would make its workers happy than any union was. The union was a power- and money-hungry institute that took away from worker's paychecks while trying to beat up on the suits in the company.
So Craig and I were pleasantly surprised when we moved to Virginia and discovered that it is a union-free state (okay, okay, "commonwealth." Whatever that means). So while there is a "Teacher's Association," they are not allowed to put any pressure on teachers to join. So Craig never did.
And because of that, we have experienced this economic slump very differently than, say, the teachers in New Jersey. Because Craig hasn't had a raise in three years. And he has always had to pay for some of his health care. When Governor Christie told the New Jersey teachers they weren't getting a raise and would need to pay for 1% of their health care premiums, Craig and I were cheering! Why shouldn't these teachers have to experience what the rest of the country was experiencing? (Oh, and our premiums went up 30% this last year. Thank you, Obama. We weren't very sympathetic to these teachers whining because they had to pay anything at all.)
This is where you might be thinking, "But if Craig had a strong union, maybe he would have been getting raises and not having to pay so much for health insurance!" No, probably not. With a strong union around, Craig probably would have been laid off that first summer after the housing market crashed. Because he was the low man on the totem at that point, and unions always look out for the person who's been there longest-- no matter what their qualifications. This was true of the pilots that worked for Airborne. They made sure that starting salaries were so low as to be nearly impossible to live on (much like teachers, actually) and the older pilots got all the benefits. As my boss once said, "They eat their young."
The teacher's union is no different. Craig has told me about a teacher at his elementary school (in New Jersey) who apparently hated teaching: she would come visit Craig's teacher as often as 13 times in one day, looking for reasons to abandon her own classroom. That is appalling behavior, but she couldn't be fired because the union was protecting her. She had been there for 30+ years, was making a fat salary, and was virtually un-fireable. This was what the unions had done for their schools.
Craig hasn't had a raise in three years, and my understanding is that with the economy this bad, he's not the only one in that boat. But because there isn't a strong union, he still has a job, while the teachers who weren't particularly good teachers have been the ones to get laid off, along with some of the administration positions that were slightly less necessary.
Do I wish Craig would get a raise? Heck, yeah!
Do I think his school district has the money for it? Probably not right now. Although I'm praying for an economic recovery!
Until they do have the money, there's not much point grousing for more of it. That's how you end up with states like California-- drowning in debt with no foreseeable way of escaping it. In the same way that I avoid credit card debt, I'd rather Virginia (and Manassas Park) not hurt themselves that way. It wouldn't actually be solving any problems.
So my opinion about Wisconsin boils down to pretty much the same thing: if there's no money, you can't very well give people raises. If the only way to get more money is by raising taxes, all you're doing is encouraging people to want to live somewhere else, meaning there are less people paying those taxes. It becomes a very bad cycle. (And it's one of the reasons my in-laws didn't mind leaving New Jersey-- their taxes were outrageously high there.)
And when people talk about how it's their "right" to get a pay raise, I say that it's their right to go work somewhere else if they're not happy with what they're earning. But it's not their right to demand that I pay more taxes when the same poor economy that they're living in is effecting me (and my wallet), too.
I think that's enough of a rant for now. Maybe some day I'll treat you to an essay giving you my thoughts on teacher's salaries. Maybe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Craig just read this and pointed out that I didn't actually say anything about Wisconsin. I guess knowing my opinions now, you can probably connect the dots to figure out how I feel about Wisconsin. But if you still have questions, feel free to ask em here!
Thanks for writing this, Alanna! I get the sense that the unions probably do some good, but can also do a lot of harm. Sounds like they could do with some revamping.
I had no idea teachers had to pay so little of their health care premiums (though, to be honest, I have no idea what percentage of our premiums we're paying...for comparable plans to what we had at Lockheed, it costs us 2-3x more per month, so I'm guessing a fairly substantial percentage).
And there has got to be a better way to evaluate teachers. Giving tenure simply for being around some number of years (in my schools in NJ it was 3 years and 1 day), is stupid. But I can't say I feel it should be eliminated all together because it'd be good for truly excellent teachers to have that security (very few PE teachers would end up qualifying in my experience...). You can't judge them based off of student's test scores though. The teachers who teach the honors track students will always look great, even if they're not the best. While the teachers who teach CP courses will be stuck biting their nails from year to year, even if they're amazing.
I'm not sure these thoughts are very worthwhile, but you'll have to forgive me. I'm running on a serious lack of sleep (darn trains!), to the point where I'm finding things put away in completely odd and non-sensical places and wondering where my mind has gone...
Here we are in California and our sister retirement community (the one I used to work at) is in the process of voting out their union. They began to realize that all they ever got from it was less money via union dues being automatically withdrawn from their paychecks. The economy is actually what pushed them to be non-union. Ironic, eh?
So here's the most important thing you need to know about what's been going on in Wisconsin. The big debate isn't just about money, but that Gov. Walker is also trying to limit their bargaining power that public unions use. There's a big difference between private unions and public unions, namely that public employees are paid for by taxpayers. Public employees were never supposed to be able to unionize because their employees are elected officials. In other words, they're using their salary (our tax dollars) to pay unions, who in turn give most of those dollars to politicians who will raise taxes in order to raise the unions salaries. Then union leaders raise dues in order to give more money to politicians in order to get the taxes raised in order to... Yeah, it's a continuous circle.
So yes, I agree with everything you said about unions in general, but this is an even bigger deal, and I sure hope that Governor Walker is a bigger man than what's-his-name in Indiana who caved to the democratic state senators who went on the lam.
Oooh, I would like to hear what you have to say about teacher's salaries. :)
If you have a moment, check out The Daily Show from Thursday (March 3rd). Actually just watch the first section if you only have 5 min.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-march-3-2011-diane-ravitch
The segment isn't about unions per se, but more about how it totally appalling that teachers are scapegoated all the time. "They only work 9 months a year" etc. I agree that some teachers suck, but most are doing the best they can, and I imagine most teachers didn't go into the field for the money and lavish benefits.
Contrast that with those in firms on Wall Street who got bailed out, etc, and don't want to hear about putting limits on their CEO pay. Hrm. Taxpayer money in both cases right?
Ok, so if you have a few more minutes, skip to the end -- the lady interviewed at the end of the show wrote a book about the US education system. I'd be curious to hear what you think. She touches on the giant disparities between school systems in our country.
Seems to me that we can blame unions or not for the current state of things ... but maybe the bigger question is, what will it take to create a dynamic, intelligent population base to keep America running for the next 200+ years? Seem like focusing on education (and science!) should be top priorities (says the scientist. ;)
Maybe our classrooms could be more like this (from Singapore!).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/opinion/30friedman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
One final thought, stemming from the disparity idea. Have you taken a look at income inequality in the USA over the past 30 years? This recent article has some graphs to illustrate just how insane it's become:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
I understand that in a dynamic, capitalist system we need to reward smart people for taking risks and creating value ... but it seems like it would be nice if we didn't reward such a tiny fraction so much of the pie. As long as I'm dreaming, it would also be nice if we took a longer-term view then our current quarterly/short-term focus. But whatever.
Also, in those charts, note how many congresspersons are really really rich (both parties). So, we have people running the country who are not in the same financial boat as most of us IN the country. That is interesting too.
Liz
ps: Also, FYI: Part of the middle segment of The Daily Show gives BYU a shout-out for sticking to its guns and suspending a basketball player for violating the honor code, right as playoffs started.
A couple quick thoughts on Elizabeth's comment - my computer's not working well, so I haven't checked out any of the links, but two thoughts on what you wrote:
1. About your point with Wall Street, remember that pretty much anyone who is against all this jazz with the teachers unions is also 100% against the Wall Street bailouts, and all other bailouts, for that matter.
2. It's interesting that people in congress are in charge of their own paycheck, isn't it? I could off on that for a while, but as you said, that's definitely a problem in both parties. Their huge salaries/benefits are definitely a huge waste of tax dollars!!
Hi Natalie!
Just to clarify:
1) As the first section of The Daily Show clip points out, many of the same people who are upset with teachers' unions (and salaries) are actually *pro* Wall Street (and also want to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone, including very rich). I'm all for internal consistency in belief systems, but this hasn't been in evidence...
2) While I agree that it's annoying that Congress people set their own salaries, that wasn't my main point. Actually most of the very rich Congresspersons probably took a pay cut to be IN Congress! My guess is that most of the wealthiest members of Congress made (created, inherited, married into) their fortunes before getting into political sector at all. My intended point was just that the wealthier Congresspersons are coming from a financial viewpoint that is very different from most of the rest of us in the country (Repub's and Demo's alike).
Ok ok I should go back to actually working and leave Alanna's poor blog alone. :)
Liz
Craig and I have been watching the Daily Show clip and Craig is getting more and more annoyed. I hate when they try to compare Wall Street with public sector stuff because the two are completely different. The bailouts for Wall Street were done by a republican during an election year and then by democrats and most republicans were against them-- this is why the tea party movement was started, because conservatives weren't happy with what republicans OR democrats were doing!
Craig will be the first to tell you that he enjoys having his summer off and working shorter hours and that's why he was willing to be a teacher and not make as much money. A good CEO is hard to come by and should be paid a lot. A bad CEO that runs his company into the ground should find himself unemployed, which is why I don't think any of those companies should have been bailed out.
I agree that the school systems need to be changed, but I have no idea how to begin doing it. I sort of like the idea of charter schools, but the problem is that they bring public schools down even lower-- the public schools end up losing their best students and (perhaps more significantly) their most involved parents, who can really make a big difference in a school. Remember back when they wanted to have vouchers so anyone could send their kid to a private school? I wonder what that would have done for our education system...
The one thing I do know is that my in-laws said that in New Jersey they threw TONS of money at some of their worst school districts and nothing changed. Most of the money went straight into corrupt people's pockets, some of it went towards getting computers and things, but until you have really great teachers and a mindset of wanting to work in order to succeed among the students (and their parents), not much else can really change anything.
The interesting thing about Congressmen being wealthy is that I think this was how the founding fathers wanted it-- their idea was that the wealthy were the smart, hard-working successful people who would understand how to set up rules for the good of the whole. But politicians were never meant to be people who wanted to rule-- just people who were honorable and would do their best. That's why George Washington set such a great precedent by NOT being interesting in running the country. All he actually wanted to do was to work on his farm. But I think unfortunately most politicians (on all sides of the political spectrum) are in it for the power and the prestige, which is not what this country is designed for.
As far as the disparity of incomes-- who is rewarding people for innovative ideas? I don't think the government should be giving taxpayer's money to companies, but if they make money because people want their product (think Apple or any other successful company) then what could be wrong with that? They're being rewarded by millions of individuals thinking they have good and innovative ideas, which is exactly how capitalism is supposed to work.
I think I'm rambling and being tangential. I hope I'm making some sense...
So I've been out of the blogosphere for a while and just got back to this conversation. I'm afraid my brain is too tired other than to have enjoyed both of the most recent comments. It's nice to be able to have a real conversation about different ideas about what's going on in the country.
I just read an article by Thomas Sowell about the unions that's a good read. Check it out at http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/03/08/union_myths
Post a Comment