This subject, as well as this post are somewhat old now, but important enough that I still feel I should comment on them.
Let me preface this by saying that I don't miss bin Laden's life at all. I am perfectly content that he is no longer with us.
I do, however, agree with some of the points Ron Paul made, as well as have some of my own as to why this was carried out incorrectly.
First of all, there are international norms. First and foremost is sovereignty. We had no business sending military and intelligence personnel inside of another country and essentially assassinating someone without at least asking for the host country to arrest him first. Unless there was a credible reason to believe that the security of the information would have been threatened by involving Pakistan, that country's government should have been involved.
Second, from a norms and moral standpoint, capturing an enemy is always preferable to killing an enemy. Osama should have been arrested, not shot.
On the same note, Osama lead a movement based on a religion (radical Islam, not all Islam) which still believes in martyrs. The men bin Laden funded and trained to carry out the 9/11 attacks gave up their lives fighting for their cause. They are considered heros by radical Muslims. By killing bin Laden in a military attack, we have made him a martyr. By capturing him and putting him on trial in a U.S., Western style court, we would have brought about his end through the very system he has spent his whole life fighting. This would have been a much more clear message to terrorists around the world.
Quite frankly, between the anger over his death and our blatant disregard for the sovereignty of the Pakistani government, and the fact that he died a martyr, I am a little surprised that nobody has stepped up and publicly claimed the leadership of al Qaeda yet. I also doubt that we will see the anniversary of bin Laden's death without another major terrorist attack. We have enraged radical Muslims, and given bin Laden the hero's death so many of his followers actively seek. Do we really think this was the best way to handle the situation?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
General Criticism of Moral Politics
So far, I've discussed in my last two posts my issues with Moral Politics and its handling of Libertarianism. There is a far more general, larger problem with the book, however. Although the author exposes his political bias both at the beginning and at the end of his work, even without his explicit acknowledgement, it would be fairly obvious.
He is right to repeatedly use the disclaimer that he is speaking of "central" cases, and that there is such a thing as an "ideal case." His bias, however, clearly affects what he views as both the central and ideal cases of the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent models of family values, which lead to certain moral worldviews, and thus, certain political worldviews.
In particular, his view of the nurturant parent model seems much more central, and ideal, than what he points to as the real, central case of the strict father parenting model.
The style of parenting which he calls strict father parenting, and which he points to as a large part of his reasoning for being liberal, would seem extreme to many strict parents. In fact, he debunks with the idea of strict father parenting (and thus, conservative politics) largely by quoting the religious right in their parenting manuals which support physical punishment, often extreme physical punishment, and then citing research which shows the negative long term affects of physical punishment.
Many conservative, traditional, or otherwise strict families believe in and use strict parenting, without physical contact, and certainly without abusive physical contact. Many strict families also do not value the maintenance of moral order over all other values. The most obvious example that came to mind reading this section is a severe, and troubling one. Would most traditional families really punish a female child for accusing an older male relative of molesting and/or raping her? While this is a common fear of many victims, that they will be accused of lying, or blamed for the attack, very few parents, if they believed their daughters, would punish her for speaking out. According to the image painted in Moral Politics all strict father parents would.
Moreover, I can tell you, that while there were certainly nurturant aspects of my upbringing, being raised by my mother who worked a lot of hours, in a big city, it was mostly strict parent child rearing. I was spanked once, when I was three. But I was punished for breaking the rules. I was allowed to debate with my mother, and to ask questions, or ask for exceptions to rules. But, for example, when I was in high school, my curfew was generally 10 p.m. If I wanted to go to a concert that didn't end until 12, meaning I would get home at around 1 a.m., I could ask my mother. I could explain it was a band I really wanted to see. I could tell her I would be right home after the concert. Sometimes she would agree, sometimes she wouldn't. When she didn't, 10 p.m. it was. I was home at 10, and I knew that there would be consequences to my actions if I was not. Never physical violence, but punishment.
Although I was only spanked once, I was often disciplined, even in public. I was taught manners very early. Keep in mind that I did not grow up in Las Vegas, but in the more temperate Midwest. If I misbehaved at a restaurants, my parents would warn me once. If I couldn't behave appropriately for a restaurant, I wouldn't eat in a restaurant. If I continued fidgeting, running around, crying, playing with my food, throwing a tantrum, or whatever other inappropriate behavior I had engaged in, they would take me to the car, roll down the windows a bit, and lock me in until our food came. They would then ask for the food to go, and we would eat it at home. This was obviously a punishment for disobeying them, as well as disobeying society's norms, or "the moral order." It was not physical agression.
I was not allowed to eat dessert if I didn't finish my main meal. If I was bad, I went to bed early and without watching TV. If I broke something at school, I paid for it out of my allowance and was not allowed to go out and use my allowance for anything fun until it was paid for. None of these sound like nurturant parent parenting to me. Yet, only once was a finger lifted in disciplining me. And it was not by the more active parent in my childhood.
I would argue that most conservatives, or even liberals and moderates who believe in strict father child raising, had similar experiences. We were respected, and allowed a voice in the family discussion. But when our parents made up their minds, we knew they meant it. They were the boss. And we knew there would be immediate, non-negotiable punishment for disobeying them. A strict parent can be strict without being physically violent. This simple reality invalidates most of the author's arguments in favor of liberalism.
Finally, to look at the biased and unfair treatment of these two systems by the author, we need only look at the titles he has given the two models. They are loaded with moral judgment for the liberal, or even modern, reader. The idea of a "Strict Father" parenting model screams sexism. "Nurturant Parent" on the other hand points toward an egalitarian, PC, modern-style family arrangement. The reality is that "parents" can be strict, and "fathers" can be nurturant.
Lakoff presents an interesting way of looking at politics, but perhaps because politics and political science are not his specialty, his bias is obvious throughout the book, inhibiting him from providing a truly balanced view using his paradigm.
He is right to repeatedly use the disclaimer that he is speaking of "central" cases, and that there is such a thing as an "ideal case." His bias, however, clearly affects what he views as both the central and ideal cases of the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent models of family values, which lead to certain moral worldviews, and thus, certain political worldviews.
In particular, his view of the nurturant parent model seems much more central, and ideal, than what he points to as the real, central case of the strict father parenting model.
The style of parenting which he calls strict father parenting, and which he points to as a large part of his reasoning for being liberal, would seem extreme to many strict parents. In fact, he debunks with the idea of strict father parenting (and thus, conservative politics) largely by quoting the religious right in their parenting manuals which support physical punishment, often extreme physical punishment, and then citing research which shows the negative long term affects of physical punishment.
Many conservative, traditional, or otherwise strict families believe in and use strict parenting, without physical contact, and certainly without abusive physical contact. Many strict families also do not value the maintenance of moral order over all other values. The most obvious example that came to mind reading this section is a severe, and troubling one. Would most traditional families really punish a female child for accusing an older male relative of molesting and/or raping her? While this is a common fear of many victims, that they will be accused of lying, or blamed for the attack, very few parents, if they believed their daughters, would punish her for speaking out. According to the image painted in Moral Politics all strict father parents would.
Moreover, I can tell you, that while there were certainly nurturant aspects of my upbringing, being raised by my mother who worked a lot of hours, in a big city, it was mostly strict parent child rearing. I was spanked once, when I was three. But I was punished for breaking the rules. I was allowed to debate with my mother, and to ask questions, or ask for exceptions to rules. But, for example, when I was in high school, my curfew was generally 10 p.m. If I wanted to go to a concert that didn't end until 12, meaning I would get home at around 1 a.m., I could ask my mother. I could explain it was a band I really wanted to see. I could tell her I would be right home after the concert. Sometimes she would agree, sometimes she wouldn't. When she didn't, 10 p.m. it was. I was home at 10, and I knew that there would be consequences to my actions if I was not. Never physical violence, but punishment.
Although I was only spanked once, I was often disciplined, even in public. I was taught manners very early. Keep in mind that I did not grow up in Las Vegas, but in the more temperate Midwest. If I misbehaved at a restaurants, my parents would warn me once. If I couldn't behave appropriately for a restaurant, I wouldn't eat in a restaurant. If I continued fidgeting, running around, crying, playing with my food, throwing a tantrum, or whatever other inappropriate behavior I had engaged in, they would take me to the car, roll down the windows a bit, and lock me in until our food came. They would then ask for the food to go, and we would eat it at home. This was obviously a punishment for disobeying them, as well as disobeying society's norms, or "the moral order." It was not physical agression.
I was not allowed to eat dessert if I didn't finish my main meal. If I was bad, I went to bed early and without watching TV. If I broke something at school, I paid for it out of my allowance and was not allowed to go out and use my allowance for anything fun until it was paid for. None of these sound like nurturant parent parenting to me. Yet, only once was a finger lifted in disciplining me. And it was not by the more active parent in my childhood.
I would argue that most conservatives, or even liberals and moderates who believe in strict father child raising, had similar experiences. We were respected, and allowed a voice in the family discussion. But when our parents made up their minds, we knew they meant it. They were the boss. And we knew there would be immediate, non-negotiable punishment for disobeying them. A strict parent can be strict without being physically violent. This simple reality invalidates most of the author's arguments in favor of liberalism.
Finally, to look at the biased and unfair treatment of these two systems by the author, we need only look at the titles he has given the two models. They are loaded with moral judgment for the liberal, or even modern, reader. The idea of a "Strict Father" parenting model screams sexism. "Nurturant Parent" on the other hand points toward an egalitarian, PC, modern-style family arrangement. The reality is that "parents" can be strict, and "fathers" can be nurturant.
Lakoff presents an interesting way of looking at politics, but perhaps because politics and political science are not his specialty, his bias is obvious throughout the book, inhibiting him from providing a truly balanced view using his paradigm.
Friday, April 29, 2011
More on Moral Politics and Libertarians
So, having re-read all of Moral Politics, the author actually specifically addresses Libertarians within his frame of thought. And it is even more irritating than what I thought was his total emission.
First of all, he covers Libertarianism in all of one page. Second, he uses that page to basically say, "Libertarians won't admit it, but they are Conservatives at heart." His argument is lacking in several aspects.
First, he defeats it with his own arguments. His explanation of Libertarianism is that inherent with "Strict Father" (i.e. Conservative) morality and politics is the inherent reality that a) a strict father raises his children that way so that once they are mature, they can be self reliant, and b) there is resentment from an adult child whose father is overly intrusive and does not allow him to "sink or swim" in adulthood. Libertarians focus, rather than on other aspects of Strict Father morality, on this resentment of the overly-intrusive father figure (i.e. the government). Well, that would seem to make sense, except for a couple things. First, this is a side effect of the Strict Father morality and politics, not a central issue of it. Focusing on a side effect of the system does not mean Libertarians buy into the system. Second of all, according to his own explanation of Strict Father morality, and why Conservatives can support policies that don't seem to actually achieve their ends, he brushes this off, as saying that, in Strict Father morality, preservation of Strict Father morality is always priority number one. So, if his explanation of the priorities of Strict Father morality is true, then Libertarians cannot truly be a part of this, if their emphasis is on removing an overly-strict father from the picture, rather than on preserving absolute adherence to Strict Father values.
Although he does not address it in his discussion of Libertarians specifically, the author dismisses the idea that Libertarians, or anyone else, could have a political theory based on something other than either "Strict Father" or "Nurturant Parent" family-based morality. He argues that because the family is biologically and socially our primary point of reference, it is impossible to look at morality without considering the family. And, because politics is necessarily moral, it is therefor impossible to have a political theory not based on morality, and thus on the family. This argument looks bullet proof at first glance. Upon a closer look, however, it is faulty. This would be equivalent to saying that because physical nutrition is our foremost requirement, everything we do, think, or say, must be based on food. Just because something ranks high on our ladder of priorities as individuals and a society does not mean everything below it must be based on it. It just means that, at the end of the day, if it comes down to food or family, we take food. If it comes down to our family's survival or our moral values, we choose family. Look, for instance, at conservative families who embrace their gay and lesbian children. They place their family over their personal moral values.
Yes, our political discourse is filled with references to the family. It is also filled with references to money, war, sex, relationships, geography, death, survival and dozens of other things. This does not mean it is based on any one of these things. It means that either a) they are all factors, b) our politicians are skilled at using terminology that will pull at people's deepest instinctual and emotional strings, or c) some combination of the two. In sciences, and even in social sciences, there are two questions too often overlooked by people trying (consciously or subconsciously) to prove a point. First, is the relationship causal, and second, which direction does the causation run? While Moral Politics lays out a relationship between family values, morality, and politics, it does not answer either of these questions. Are the three linked by a causal relationship? Do family values lead to morality to politics, or some combination of them? Or are they all just such large factors of our lives that they inherently cross paths and influence each other? If we accept that there is, in fact, a causal relationship, which way does that run. Do people hold the values they hold because of their family values? Or do we raise our children a certain way because of our political and/or moral outlook? The book does not adequately answer any of these questions.
Finally, even if we accept that Conservatives are Conservative and Liberals are Liberal because of their respective systems of child-rearing and the moral values those systems instill, it does not mean that every political ideology will necessarily be based on a family-based moral outlook. Even if we accept that they all are, however, there is no evidence to support the idea that these are the only two ways of raising children, or the only two systems of moral values that guide child-rearing.
In short, the author has laid out a wonderful hypothesis. It's time to prove it. Using links and value hierarchies, however, does not prove a causal, much less an exclusive causal relationship.
I would argue that Libertarianism could just as (if not more) easily be viewed as a Nurturant political system as a Strict political system. In fact, it is based on the (according to the work Nurturant) idea that we should be able to make our own choices, and choose to be creative, to express ourselves, etc. There is also another factor. Libertarians believe that perhaps the government is not the best at nurturing its citizens. Libertarians support private charity, small businesses creating jobs, freedom of expression to express ideas and educate each other through art, etc. Perhaps, then, Libertarians fit within our own family values system. Perhaps it is the Nurturant Sibling, or Orphan, family morality which guides Libertarians. Like families who have been neglected by parents, where an older sibling supports and raises a younger sibling, Libertarians may feel our government has not been there to provide the nurturing "upbringing" it was supposed to. Despite years of over-regulation, social welfare programs, public education, arts education, etc. look at where we are? We are soon to be overtaken as the world's largest economy. A (relatively) small dip in the world markets has left millions unemployed and kicked out of their homes. The poverty rate in our country is still abysmal for a country which consumes so much. Perhaps the Libertarian philosophy is that our parents (the federal government), our foster parents (local governments and government subsidized big business), and the system have let us down. It's time for them to back off and let the big siblings, who have done well, create jobs, education, and other infrastructure, and nurture our "younger siblings" who need a little extra help.
First of all, he covers Libertarianism in all of one page. Second, he uses that page to basically say, "Libertarians won't admit it, but they are Conservatives at heart." His argument is lacking in several aspects.
First, he defeats it with his own arguments. His explanation of Libertarianism is that inherent with "Strict Father" (i.e. Conservative) morality and politics is the inherent reality that a) a strict father raises his children that way so that once they are mature, they can be self reliant, and b) there is resentment from an adult child whose father is overly intrusive and does not allow him to "sink or swim" in adulthood. Libertarians focus, rather than on other aspects of Strict Father morality, on this resentment of the overly-intrusive father figure (i.e. the government). Well, that would seem to make sense, except for a couple things. First, this is a side effect of the Strict Father morality and politics, not a central issue of it. Focusing on a side effect of the system does not mean Libertarians buy into the system. Second of all, according to his own explanation of Strict Father morality, and why Conservatives can support policies that don't seem to actually achieve their ends, he brushes this off, as saying that, in Strict Father morality, preservation of Strict Father morality is always priority number one. So, if his explanation of the priorities of Strict Father morality is true, then Libertarians cannot truly be a part of this, if their emphasis is on removing an overly-strict father from the picture, rather than on preserving absolute adherence to Strict Father values.
Although he does not address it in his discussion of Libertarians specifically, the author dismisses the idea that Libertarians, or anyone else, could have a political theory based on something other than either "Strict Father" or "Nurturant Parent" family-based morality. He argues that because the family is biologically and socially our primary point of reference, it is impossible to look at morality without considering the family. And, because politics is necessarily moral, it is therefor impossible to have a political theory not based on morality, and thus on the family. This argument looks bullet proof at first glance. Upon a closer look, however, it is faulty. This would be equivalent to saying that because physical nutrition is our foremost requirement, everything we do, think, or say, must be based on food. Just because something ranks high on our ladder of priorities as individuals and a society does not mean everything below it must be based on it. It just means that, at the end of the day, if it comes down to food or family, we take food. If it comes down to our family's survival or our moral values, we choose family. Look, for instance, at conservative families who embrace their gay and lesbian children. They place their family over their personal moral values.
Yes, our political discourse is filled with references to the family. It is also filled with references to money, war, sex, relationships, geography, death, survival and dozens of other things. This does not mean it is based on any one of these things. It means that either a) they are all factors, b) our politicians are skilled at using terminology that will pull at people's deepest instinctual and emotional strings, or c) some combination of the two. In sciences, and even in social sciences, there are two questions too often overlooked by people trying (consciously or subconsciously) to prove a point. First, is the relationship causal, and second, which direction does the causation run? While Moral Politics lays out a relationship between family values, morality, and politics, it does not answer either of these questions. Are the three linked by a causal relationship? Do family values lead to morality to politics, or some combination of them? Or are they all just such large factors of our lives that they inherently cross paths and influence each other? If we accept that there is, in fact, a causal relationship, which way does that run. Do people hold the values they hold because of their family values? Or do we raise our children a certain way because of our political and/or moral outlook? The book does not adequately answer any of these questions.
Finally, even if we accept that Conservatives are Conservative and Liberals are Liberal because of their respective systems of child-rearing and the moral values those systems instill, it does not mean that every political ideology will necessarily be based on a family-based moral outlook. Even if we accept that they all are, however, there is no evidence to support the idea that these are the only two ways of raising children, or the only two systems of moral values that guide child-rearing.
In short, the author has laid out a wonderful hypothesis. It's time to prove it. Using links and value hierarchies, however, does not prove a causal, much less an exclusive causal relationship.
I would argue that Libertarianism could just as (if not more) easily be viewed as a Nurturant political system as a Strict political system. In fact, it is based on the (according to the work Nurturant) idea that we should be able to make our own choices, and choose to be creative, to express ourselves, etc. There is also another factor. Libertarians believe that perhaps the government is not the best at nurturing its citizens. Libertarians support private charity, small businesses creating jobs, freedom of expression to express ideas and educate each other through art, etc. Perhaps, then, Libertarians fit within our own family values system. Perhaps it is the Nurturant Sibling, or Orphan, family morality which guides Libertarians. Like families who have been neglected by parents, where an older sibling supports and raises a younger sibling, Libertarians may feel our government has not been there to provide the nurturing "upbringing" it was supposed to. Despite years of over-regulation, social welfare programs, public education, arts education, etc. look at where we are? We are soon to be overtaken as the world's largest economy. A (relatively) small dip in the world markets has left millions unemployed and kicked out of their homes. The poverty rate in our country is still abysmal for a country which consumes so much. Perhaps the Libertarian philosophy is that our parents (the federal government), our foster parents (local governments and government subsidized big business), and the system have let us down. It's time for them to back off and let the big siblings, who have done well, create jobs, education, and other infrastructure, and nurture our "younger siblings" who need a little extra help.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
The Truth About Education and Teachers' Unions
This is an old article, but important enough that I'm still going to write on it. Basically, it goes into the numbers and debunks the myth that teachers' unions lead to better schools. More interestingly, it uses statistics and facts usually hailed by liberal and progressive groups to do so.
In short, liberals are claiming that unionized teachers create better schools. The argument debunks this, pointing out that, in fact, what makes a lot of the model states for this argument either rank well or poorly on education is actually socioeconomic makeup.
Again, to me, the most interesting part of this is that this is a typically liberal argument about education and equality, particularly racial equality. Statistically speaking, poor and minority students don't do as well, and their school districts don't rank as well. The states at the bottom end of the achievement scale have largely poor or minority students, while those at the top have largely middle and upper class white students.
The blogger actually goes a step further and breaks down test scores within each state by race. In fact, many of the non-union states' white students do quite well. It is the effect of combining these scores with the larger minority populations which make the overall state averages lower.
As the author points out, there are several reasons minority students don't do as well. They tend to come from less wealthy, and less educated families, who have survived without the benefit of a college education. They are less likely, therefore, to think that a college degree, and the success it requires in high school to get one, are entirely necessary to survive in today's economy. They also likely come from communities without a lot of well-educated role models. They are less likely to know that if they do well in high school, they will be able to afford to go to college, or to a top tier college.
Many minority groups (with the exclusion of black and Native American groups), also face the increased challenge of many of their members not living in English as a first language households. Not being raised in an English-speaking home can negatively affect performance both in school and on standardized tests.
Finally, there has long been an argument that standardized tests themselves contain a racial bias. While this may be hard to believe, it is quite plausible. Much of these tests revolves around reading comprehension, mathematical word problems, etc. While these are noble attempts to allow students to apply their knowledge in a real world setting, for those who grew up in less affluent areas, or in an ethnic enclave, these backgrounds can be anything but "real world."
Let's not get started on the issue of school funding. The schools most in need of help often receive the least funding, as they are in poorer neighborhoods.
All of these issues add up to explain why minorities don't do as well on standardized tests. This explains far more about nationwide education rankings than the presence or absence of teachers' unions. Instead of trying to fight for or against teachers' unions to improve student performance, perhaps we should focus on making real changes in our education system. Offering school vouchers to allow students and parents to choose the best school for their child. Improving inner city and minority-populated schools. Rewriting standardized tests to be a fair representation of a student's knowledge and intelligence, rather than biased toward those with a fortunate upbringing. Allowing non-traditional teaching methods into the classroom. Rewarding teachers for their performance, not their length of service. All of these are issues which will close the achievement gap, and raise the bottom-ranked states up the national education ladder. Coincidentally, many of these are ideas which teachers' unions oppose.
In short, liberals are claiming that unionized teachers create better schools. The argument debunks this, pointing out that, in fact, what makes a lot of the model states for this argument either rank well or poorly on education is actually socioeconomic makeup.
Again, to me, the most interesting part of this is that this is a typically liberal argument about education and equality, particularly racial equality. Statistically speaking, poor and minority students don't do as well, and their school districts don't rank as well. The states at the bottom end of the achievement scale have largely poor or minority students, while those at the top have largely middle and upper class white students.
The blogger actually goes a step further and breaks down test scores within each state by race. In fact, many of the non-union states' white students do quite well. It is the effect of combining these scores with the larger minority populations which make the overall state averages lower.
As the author points out, there are several reasons minority students don't do as well. They tend to come from less wealthy, and less educated families, who have survived without the benefit of a college education. They are less likely, therefore, to think that a college degree, and the success it requires in high school to get one, are entirely necessary to survive in today's economy. They also likely come from communities without a lot of well-educated role models. They are less likely to know that if they do well in high school, they will be able to afford to go to college, or to a top tier college.
Many minority groups (with the exclusion of black and Native American groups), also face the increased challenge of many of their members not living in English as a first language households. Not being raised in an English-speaking home can negatively affect performance both in school and on standardized tests.
Finally, there has long been an argument that standardized tests themselves contain a racial bias. While this may be hard to believe, it is quite plausible. Much of these tests revolves around reading comprehension, mathematical word problems, etc. While these are noble attempts to allow students to apply their knowledge in a real world setting, for those who grew up in less affluent areas, or in an ethnic enclave, these backgrounds can be anything but "real world."
Let's not get started on the issue of school funding. The schools most in need of help often receive the least funding, as they are in poorer neighborhoods.
All of these issues add up to explain why minorities don't do as well on standardized tests. This explains far more about nationwide education rankings than the presence or absence of teachers' unions. Instead of trying to fight for or against teachers' unions to improve student performance, perhaps we should focus on making real changes in our education system. Offering school vouchers to allow students and parents to choose the best school for their child. Improving inner city and minority-populated schools. Rewriting standardized tests to be a fair representation of a student's knowledge and intelligence, rather than biased toward those with a fortunate upbringing. Allowing non-traditional teaching methods into the classroom. Rewarding teachers for their performance, not their length of service. All of these are issues which will close the achievement gap, and raise the bottom-ranked states up the national education ladder. Coincidentally, many of these are ideas which teachers' unions oppose.
Monday, March 28, 2011
How Libertarians are Different
So every once in a while, I like to reread my college books. One that I just started to reread is Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think
. It's interesting, because now with my own political views more shaped, even just from the introductory chapter, a lot makes sense.
The basic premise of the book explains why both of the major parties are so similar on so many major issues, and why their basic philosophical stances are so similar. It also explains why the Libertarian party is so different from the Republicans and Democrats.
The basic premise of the book is that our political thoughts are shaped by a series of metaphors based on morality, and, particularly, family morality. According to the author, Republicans believe in a strict father family model, and the Democrats believe in a nurturing parent model. Nevermind the obvious bias in implying that the Republican view is inherently more sexist than the Democratic view.
The key is that both of these thoughts are based on the premise of our nation as a child, and the government as its parent. This view, according to Libertarians is flawed. We are not one child. We are a collection of millions of individual adults. Who should be free to make our own decisions without being concerned about what our government thinks. Moreover, as the author of the book points out, the words for parents have multiple connotations. One is the figure that raises and nurtures a child, another is the genetic figure.
This last explanation provides further support to the idea that the Republican and Democratic models are fundamentally flawed. Our government did not sire, birth, parent, or otherwise create us. We created it. If anything, we should be the strict father or nurturing parent to our government, not the other way around.
The alarming part of my thoughts on this book as it relates to Libertarianism is that it also explains why we will probably never be as successful as the major parties have been in mainstream politics. The author of the book is not a political scientist, but a cognitive linguist. This field concerns itself with explaining the basic functioning of the human mind. The author's argument is that everything we do, think, and say, is based in a metaphorical relationship between that action or thought (in this case politics), our moral values, and our experiential well-being.
The concerning part is that even if we can recognize that the Libertarian view is more emotionally detached, logical, and reason-based than the major political systems, this is not how an election is won. The metaphorical and emotional ties are what win votes.
. It's interesting, because now with my own political views more shaped, even just from the introductory chapter, a lot makes sense.The basic premise of the book explains why both of the major parties are so similar on so many major issues, and why their basic philosophical stances are so similar. It also explains why the Libertarian party is so different from the Republicans and Democrats.
The basic premise of the book is that our political thoughts are shaped by a series of metaphors based on morality, and, particularly, family morality. According to the author, Republicans believe in a strict father family model, and the Democrats believe in a nurturing parent model. Nevermind the obvious bias in implying that the Republican view is inherently more sexist than the Democratic view.
The key is that both of these thoughts are based on the premise of our nation as a child, and the government as its parent. This view, according to Libertarians is flawed. We are not one child. We are a collection of millions of individual adults. Who should be free to make our own decisions without being concerned about what our government thinks. Moreover, as the author of the book points out, the words for parents have multiple connotations. One is the figure that raises and nurtures a child, another is the genetic figure.
This last explanation provides further support to the idea that the Republican and Democratic models are fundamentally flawed. Our government did not sire, birth, parent, or otherwise create us. We created it. If anything, we should be the strict father or nurturing parent to our government, not the other way around.
The alarming part of my thoughts on this book as it relates to Libertarianism is that it also explains why we will probably never be as successful as the major parties have been in mainstream politics. The author of the book is not a political scientist, but a cognitive linguist. This field concerns itself with explaining the basic functioning of the human mind. The author's argument is that everything we do, think, and say, is based in a metaphorical relationship between that action or thought (in this case politics), our moral values, and our experiential well-being.
The concerning part is that even if we can recognize that the Libertarian view is more emotionally detached, logical, and reason-based than the major political systems, this is not how an election is won. The metaphorical and emotional ties are what win votes.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
More On Walker's Union Busting
Alright. So here's another reason that I strongly oppose Governor Scott Walker's anti-Union "Budget Repair Bill" in Wisconsin.
The poor targeting of state employees.
To start with, let's stick to the assumption that collective bargaining unit-represented state employees really are the problem. Let's look at the two glaring exceptions to the now collective bargaining except for wages proposal. Police and firefighters. Who happen to be the highest paid Union-represented public employees. If the bill is really about the budget, these should be the first employees targeted. Yes, their jobs are essential to the basic operations of a state or local government, even by the most Libertarian standards. Yes, their jobs are incredibly dangerous (some of them). In fact, many police and firefighters put their lives on the line, literally, every day, in order to ensure the security of ours. This post does not mean I do not appreciate or support those efforts. But let's look at the numbers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, police, detective, and firefighter base pay ranges in the high 50's to high 70's, without longevity adjustments. This is not counting benefits. Teachers, on the other hand, with the exception of higher education, range in the mid 30's. Also, benefits, understandably, are considerably more expensive for police and firefighters. In fact, many police and fire fighters are eligible for retirement after 20 years of service. Yes, that's right. For a 21 year old entering the field, that means that they are eligible for retirement at age 41. Fair enough, given the physically strenuous nature of their jobs. Unlike most non-union, private sector jobs, however, which are fixed contribution plans, these retirement plans are generally fixed benefit plans. Which means that these employees, regardless of length of service, amount contributed by them, their Union, or their employer, will receive a fixed monthly amount for the remainder of their lives. Regardless of how long that may be. How much is this fixed amount? Often 50% of their pay as of retirement. Yes, that is correct. A 41 year old police or firefighter can be making $60,000+ a year (ignoring the raises they get for longevity, so more likely in the $80,000 range), retire, never work another day again, and make $30,000 a year (again, more likely $40,000+) until they die at the ripe old age of 112. Moreover, union employees are almost universally eligible for overtime pay. Teachers tend to work on annual salaries (not eligible for overtime), and with the exception of special circumstances (special events, weather or illness related issues), teachers, public transit workers, administrative workers, etc. should not be regularly getting overtime, unless it is due to poor management. Police and firefighters, on the other hand, are eligible for overtime pay, and, due to the nature of their jobs, can reasonably be expected to receive that overtime. If this bill is really about repairing the budget, and not about sticking it to unions, why are the most costly union workers being left untouched?
Let's now look at teachers. No, their jobs are not particularly dangerous. They also are not particularly rewarding from an economic standpoint. Low incomes, little career advancement opportunity, etc. Many people argue that paying teachers what we do, when they only work 9 months a year, is unreasonable. How many companies do you know of that will hire a grown adult for seasonal employment at a reasonable wage? Many teachers would be more than willing to work 12 years, if the work were available. It is a decision of the school boards (mind you, school boards controlled by their employers) to run a 9-month school system. Through no fault of their own, teachers have been restricted to doing their chosen work (except for a few offered pennies to instruct summer school classes) 9 months a year. Unlike bears, teachers do not hibernate. Especially during the summer. Just because we have determined that vacationing, camp, and little league are more important uses of the nice summer weather than education our children does not mean teachers stop paying rent, eating, or paying off their student loans. Moreover, if the argument behind excluding firefighters and police is that they fulfill an essential government function, after police and fire protection, I believe even most hardcore Libertarians would agree that at least a minimal public education is an essential government function.
My guess, were you to ask Walker supporters these tough questions, would be that they would argue that the danger of inflaming the police and firefighters unions is higher than that in inflaming teachers and other public employee unions. My response would be twofold. First of all, from an immediate safety standpoint, that may be true. From a long-term economic effect standpoint, this is utterly false. One year, or even one semester, without public schools could set Wisconsin's education system, and economy, back for years. Moreover, the economic effect of having hundreds of thousands of children at home without school to go to for a semester or a year would be huge. Second, this argument is all the more reason that police and firefighter unions should at least be considered eligible to have collective bargaining rights stricken. Without a union, if police and firefighters were upset with their working conditions, what are the chances of a work stoppage that actually affected operations of their departments? Yes, most union contracts include no-strike clauses, and I would wager that labor stoppages by public employees are illegal in the state of Wisconsin. This has not, however, stopped Unions before. When contracts expire, the no-strike clauses go with them. Given the physical, mental, and training requirements for police and firefighters, the prospects of firing any unionized, striking employees before a new CBA was negotiated are slim to none (that is typically the threat employers use to prevent work stoppages during CBA negotiation lapses). Moreover, the law against public employee strikes has proven ineffective in the state of Wisconsin before. How many times have Teachers Assistants and other UW System employees gone on strike, and not been punished by either the University or the State? I tend to think that a strike of police and firefighters is a highly, highly unlikely scenario. If, however, even the threat of this is a factor in their exclusion from the "budgetary microscope," the reality needs to be re-evaluated.
Now, let's stop taking for granted that Unions are the problem here. Let's question that basic assumption of Walker's bills. Yes, there are non-teacher, non-police, and non-firefighting union employees working for the State of Wisconsin, and its local and municipal governments. But there are countless more non-Union employees. From a Libertarian perspective, and from the perspective traditionally flaunted by Republicans, big government is a problem. This is supported by simple business management and economic knowledge as well. A 3% pay cut for all employees in the state will not have the same long term benefits as a 3% cut to the number of employees. It's just that simple. Take a department. We'll call it Local School District X. When we cut the pay, the pension contributions, or the health insurance requirements for all 100 employees of School District X by, say $300, we have saved $30,000. The savings are only $30,000. We still have to pay insurance, licensing, basic benefits, etc. for all 100 employees. Next year, we will likely give all employees a cost of living increase of 2.5%, plus some performance based increases, etc. If, on the other hand, we realize that there are 2 employees whose only job is to photocopy homework assignments for teachers, and we can eliminate one of those positions, we can save $30,000 in pay. We can also save 33% of that, or about another $10,000, in benefits. This is a conservative estimate, as it is the standard used in the more efficient, less worker friendly private sector. We can also save on a phone line, office supplies, physical plant and maintenance costs for one office. Next year, we will continue to see the savings, as we are not paying this employee, or giving them performance or inflation based raises. We have also actually increased the efficiency of Local School District X, and forced them to work with 99 employees, rather than 100. These employees all still make the same amount of money as they were before, and generally their morale will be only slightly less than what it was before.
The reality of it is that the cost of running our government is not mostly due to teachers, firefighters, police officers, or even bus drivers. The cost is mostly due to a bloated bureaucracy. Moreover, an even larger majority of what most Republicans, Libertarians and fiscal conservatives would consider wasteful government spending comes from this bureaucracy and the non-transparent financial situation it creates. It does not come from overpaying people in admittedly needed, typically unionized, public service positions. It comes from paying people (even if it is less than their organized counterparts) to do things that either don't need to be done, or don't need to be done by the government.
Having worked with financial and personnel decisions while on the UW Campus, I've seen first hand what positions are "classified" (i.e. bargaining unit) and "unclassified." From janitors to TAs, to research assistants, classified positions all due things clearly essential to the operation of the University. Unclassified staff do such things as photocopy, answer phones, schedule meetings for other people, etc. Often these people's workloads could easily be increased through more efficient operation. Other unclassified staff include administrators. How many deans, assistant principles, etc. does one school or University need? If anything, because the positions must generally go through both Union and employer approvals, bargaining unit positions are more carefully vetted than their non-union equivalents. Sure, there is fat that could be trimmed from Union positions as well. But "big government" (which the Republicans stand up against in campaigns, but rarely in office) is not really a problem of union employees doing the dirty work (whether it's driving a bus, putting out fires, patrolling the streets, cleaning a toilet, or teaching a class). It's a problem of the paper pushers (some of whom are covered by CBAs, but many of whom are not). In fact, even when pay and benefits are being compared between public and private sectors, the only employees who it can accurately be compared for tend to be non-union, or at least not part of the four big unionized areas which seem to receive the most media attention (police, firefighters, teachers, and public transit). Police officers may make more than the average private sector employee with a comparable (often high school or Associates degree) education. Do they make more than someone professionally trained in criminal investigation, physical fitness, first aid and lifesaving, dangerous and defensive driving, and firearms safety and usage? Is there a comparable profession which requires the extensive, although perhaps not University-provided, training that police officers go through? Or which requires one to put their life on the line, entering unknown and potentially dangerous situations as a daily routine? In fact, many police officers, military members, fire fighters, etc. can find jobs in the private sector. And if these jobs involve the same risk that their old professions did (think private military companies, etc.) they are often much better compensated than they were as public employees.
Public sector teachers may make more than their private sector equivalents. Are the jobs really comparable? Can a public school say, "no, this person is not entering with high enough test scores, we don't want them?" By taking every student in a district, are public school teachers given a pass on the expectation that their students do well at the end of the day? Can a public school refuse to take more students simply because the average class size has risen above 15? Can a public school expel a child whose behavior makes them a distraction, or even a threat, to the other students, themselves, or their teachers? Do public schools do extensive background checks on their students and their families, providing some measure of safety and security for their teachers?
Do city bus drivers make more than cab drivers?
The four most-attacked public service professions do jobs that we cannot possibly compare to any private sector equivalent. So comparing their compensation is also unreasonable.
The bottom line is this. The problem with the state budget in Wisconsin (and everywhere else) is not union wages. It is an inflated government bureaucracy. It is a bureaucracy that pays people to "regulate," "observe" and evaluate every minute aspect of people's business and personal lives. It is a bureaucracy that has more people sitting behind desks pushing paper than actually out interacting with the public they are paid to serve. It is a bureaucracy which, partly due to unions, and partly due to the nature of politics, tends to be eager to add new functions and departments, but rarely evaluates if those departments are still needed, running efficiently, or worth the money spent on them. It is a bureaucracy which uses the prior year's budget as a starting point, and builds (almost always up) off of that for each department. The solution is not to limit wages and benefits of all state employees, union or not. It is to get rid of some state employees entirely, mainly the ones that provide little or no tangible benefits to the citizens of the state of Wisconsin.
Let's just briefly point out one example of exactly the kind of thing which causes government budget problems. Conveniently, this is a proposal of the very same Governor who is "repairing" the state budget. In fact, this proposal was worked into the very same budget "repair" bill. Any guesses? Yes, that's right. The proposal to separate UW-Madison from the UW System. I haven't read the details of this. Even if we give Walker the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he put this on paper in a way that would remain budget neutral, long term, that's not going to happen. The reason that government agencies (including colleges and universities) that serve similar purposes are often consolidated is because of a duplication of services. And the idea of "shared services." For instance, state fleet vehicles. Yes, the system and UW-Madison will probably need the same number of vehicles, regardless of whether they are one system or two. On the other hand, insurance rates are likely to go up when the risk pool gets split in two. The people who account for the location, condition, and maintenance of these vehicles will now be working for two different employers. Which most likely means that the UW System will keep their current employees and Madison will hire more. The regents who oversee the system will all still be in place, compensation, travel reimbursements, support staff in all. A new board of regents will also need to be added to oversee Madison's operations. Likely, somebody will need to step back and look at the bigger higher education picture in the state of Wisconsin. These studies and evaluations will have to be done by some statewide body, whether an actual department, or a legislature committee (complete with staffers, of course). The bottom line, this proposal does anything but repair the Wisconsin state budget. Notice I have not touched on the merits of the idea itself.
But while Walker is proposing limiting the rights of the employees who few, if any, of even the most conservative or Libertarian Wisconsinites would argue are not needed, he is asking the legislature to turn the page and approve a split in a statewide system that would create many more taxpayer-paid jobs, and create countless duplications of service. My guess, however, is that as long as we can keep the number of TAs, PAs, custodians, campus bus drivers, campus security guards, and other unionized employees the same, Walker's okay with that.
Walker has gotten national media attention with his plan to "fix" Wisconsin's budget. Now, if only he would focus on fixing the budget problem that Republicans claim to see (i.e. big government) instead of expanding the government and paying the most essential state workers less, and removing their rights to collective bargaining, he might be able to set a positive example for the rest of the country.
The poor targeting of state employees.
To start with, let's stick to the assumption that collective bargaining unit-represented state employees really are the problem. Let's look at the two glaring exceptions to the now collective bargaining except for wages proposal. Police and firefighters. Who happen to be the highest paid Union-represented public employees. If the bill is really about the budget, these should be the first employees targeted. Yes, their jobs are essential to the basic operations of a state or local government, even by the most Libertarian standards. Yes, their jobs are incredibly dangerous (some of them). In fact, many police and firefighters put their lives on the line, literally, every day, in order to ensure the security of ours. This post does not mean I do not appreciate or support those efforts. But let's look at the numbers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, police, detective, and firefighter base pay ranges in the high 50's to high 70's, without longevity adjustments. This is not counting benefits. Teachers, on the other hand, with the exception of higher education, range in the mid 30's. Also, benefits, understandably, are considerably more expensive for police and firefighters. In fact, many police and fire fighters are eligible for retirement after 20 years of service. Yes, that's right. For a 21 year old entering the field, that means that they are eligible for retirement at age 41. Fair enough, given the physically strenuous nature of their jobs. Unlike most non-union, private sector jobs, however, which are fixed contribution plans, these retirement plans are generally fixed benefit plans. Which means that these employees, regardless of length of service, amount contributed by them, their Union, or their employer, will receive a fixed monthly amount for the remainder of their lives. Regardless of how long that may be. How much is this fixed amount? Often 50% of their pay as of retirement. Yes, that is correct. A 41 year old police or firefighter can be making $60,000+ a year (ignoring the raises they get for longevity, so more likely in the $80,000 range), retire, never work another day again, and make $30,000 a year (again, more likely $40,000+) until they die at the ripe old age of 112. Moreover, union employees are almost universally eligible for overtime pay. Teachers tend to work on annual salaries (not eligible for overtime), and with the exception of special circumstances (special events, weather or illness related issues), teachers, public transit workers, administrative workers, etc. should not be regularly getting overtime, unless it is due to poor management. Police and firefighters, on the other hand, are eligible for overtime pay, and, due to the nature of their jobs, can reasonably be expected to receive that overtime. If this bill is really about repairing the budget, and not about sticking it to unions, why are the most costly union workers being left untouched?
Let's now look at teachers. No, their jobs are not particularly dangerous. They also are not particularly rewarding from an economic standpoint. Low incomes, little career advancement opportunity, etc. Many people argue that paying teachers what we do, when they only work 9 months a year, is unreasonable. How many companies do you know of that will hire a grown adult for seasonal employment at a reasonable wage? Many teachers would be more than willing to work 12 years, if the work were available. It is a decision of the school boards (mind you, school boards controlled by their employers) to run a 9-month school system. Through no fault of their own, teachers have been restricted to doing their chosen work (except for a few offered pennies to instruct summer school classes) 9 months a year. Unlike bears, teachers do not hibernate. Especially during the summer. Just because we have determined that vacationing, camp, and little league are more important uses of the nice summer weather than education our children does not mean teachers stop paying rent, eating, or paying off their student loans. Moreover, if the argument behind excluding firefighters and police is that they fulfill an essential government function, after police and fire protection, I believe even most hardcore Libertarians would agree that at least a minimal public education is an essential government function.
My guess, were you to ask Walker supporters these tough questions, would be that they would argue that the danger of inflaming the police and firefighters unions is higher than that in inflaming teachers and other public employee unions. My response would be twofold. First of all, from an immediate safety standpoint, that may be true. From a long-term economic effect standpoint, this is utterly false. One year, or even one semester, without public schools could set Wisconsin's education system, and economy, back for years. Moreover, the economic effect of having hundreds of thousands of children at home without school to go to for a semester or a year would be huge. Second, this argument is all the more reason that police and firefighter unions should at least be considered eligible to have collective bargaining rights stricken. Without a union, if police and firefighters were upset with their working conditions, what are the chances of a work stoppage that actually affected operations of their departments? Yes, most union contracts include no-strike clauses, and I would wager that labor stoppages by public employees are illegal in the state of Wisconsin. This has not, however, stopped Unions before. When contracts expire, the no-strike clauses go with them. Given the physical, mental, and training requirements for police and firefighters, the prospects of firing any unionized, striking employees before a new CBA was negotiated are slim to none (that is typically the threat employers use to prevent work stoppages during CBA negotiation lapses). Moreover, the law against public employee strikes has proven ineffective in the state of Wisconsin before. How many times have Teachers Assistants and other UW System employees gone on strike, and not been punished by either the University or the State? I tend to think that a strike of police and firefighters is a highly, highly unlikely scenario. If, however, even the threat of this is a factor in their exclusion from the "budgetary microscope," the reality needs to be re-evaluated.
Now, let's stop taking for granted that Unions are the problem here. Let's question that basic assumption of Walker's bills. Yes, there are non-teacher, non-police, and non-firefighting union employees working for the State of Wisconsin, and its local and municipal governments. But there are countless more non-Union employees. From a Libertarian perspective, and from the perspective traditionally flaunted by Republicans, big government is a problem. This is supported by simple business management and economic knowledge as well. A 3% pay cut for all employees in the state will not have the same long term benefits as a 3% cut to the number of employees. It's just that simple. Take a department. We'll call it Local School District X. When we cut the pay, the pension contributions, or the health insurance requirements for all 100 employees of School District X by, say $300, we have saved $30,000. The savings are only $30,000. We still have to pay insurance, licensing, basic benefits, etc. for all 100 employees. Next year, we will likely give all employees a cost of living increase of 2.5%, plus some performance based increases, etc. If, on the other hand, we realize that there are 2 employees whose only job is to photocopy homework assignments for teachers, and we can eliminate one of those positions, we can save $30,000 in pay. We can also save 33% of that, or about another $10,000, in benefits. This is a conservative estimate, as it is the standard used in the more efficient, less worker friendly private sector. We can also save on a phone line, office supplies, physical plant and maintenance costs for one office. Next year, we will continue to see the savings, as we are not paying this employee, or giving them performance or inflation based raises. We have also actually increased the efficiency of Local School District X, and forced them to work with 99 employees, rather than 100. These employees all still make the same amount of money as they were before, and generally their morale will be only slightly less than what it was before.
The reality of it is that the cost of running our government is not mostly due to teachers, firefighters, police officers, or even bus drivers. The cost is mostly due to a bloated bureaucracy. Moreover, an even larger majority of what most Republicans, Libertarians and fiscal conservatives would consider wasteful government spending comes from this bureaucracy and the non-transparent financial situation it creates. It does not come from overpaying people in admittedly needed, typically unionized, public service positions. It comes from paying people (even if it is less than their organized counterparts) to do things that either don't need to be done, or don't need to be done by the government.
Having worked with financial and personnel decisions while on the UW Campus, I've seen first hand what positions are "classified" (i.e. bargaining unit) and "unclassified." From janitors to TAs, to research assistants, classified positions all due things clearly essential to the operation of the University. Unclassified staff do such things as photocopy, answer phones, schedule meetings for other people, etc. Often these people's workloads could easily be increased through more efficient operation. Other unclassified staff include administrators. How many deans, assistant principles, etc. does one school or University need? If anything, because the positions must generally go through both Union and employer approvals, bargaining unit positions are more carefully vetted than their non-union equivalents. Sure, there is fat that could be trimmed from Union positions as well. But "big government" (which the Republicans stand up against in campaigns, but rarely in office) is not really a problem of union employees doing the dirty work (whether it's driving a bus, putting out fires, patrolling the streets, cleaning a toilet, or teaching a class). It's a problem of the paper pushers (some of whom are covered by CBAs, but many of whom are not). In fact, even when pay and benefits are being compared between public and private sectors, the only employees who it can accurately be compared for tend to be non-union, or at least not part of the four big unionized areas which seem to receive the most media attention (police, firefighters, teachers, and public transit). Police officers may make more than the average private sector employee with a comparable (often high school or Associates degree) education. Do they make more than someone professionally trained in criminal investigation, physical fitness, first aid and lifesaving, dangerous and defensive driving, and firearms safety and usage? Is there a comparable profession which requires the extensive, although perhaps not University-provided, training that police officers go through? Or which requires one to put their life on the line, entering unknown and potentially dangerous situations as a daily routine? In fact, many police officers, military members, fire fighters, etc. can find jobs in the private sector. And if these jobs involve the same risk that their old professions did (think private military companies, etc.) they are often much better compensated than they were as public employees.
Public sector teachers may make more than their private sector equivalents. Are the jobs really comparable? Can a public school say, "no, this person is not entering with high enough test scores, we don't want them?" By taking every student in a district, are public school teachers given a pass on the expectation that their students do well at the end of the day? Can a public school refuse to take more students simply because the average class size has risen above 15? Can a public school expel a child whose behavior makes them a distraction, or even a threat, to the other students, themselves, or their teachers? Do public schools do extensive background checks on their students and their families, providing some measure of safety and security for their teachers?
Do city bus drivers make more than cab drivers?
The four most-attacked public service professions do jobs that we cannot possibly compare to any private sector equivalent. So comparing their compensation is also unreasonable.
The bottom line is this. The problem with the state budget in Wisconsin (and everywhere else) is not union wages. It is an inflated government bureaucracy. It is a bureaucracy that pays people to "regulate," "observe" and evaluate every minute aspect of people's business and personal lives. It is a bureaucracy that has more people sitting behind desks pushing paper than actually out interacting with the public they are paid to serve. It is a bureaucracy which, partly due to unions, and partly due to the nature of politics, tends to be eager to add new functions and departments, but rarely evaluates if those departments are still needed, running efficiently, or worth the money spent on them. It is a bureaucracy which uses the prior year's budget as a starting point, and builds (almost always up) off of that for each department. The solution is not to limit wages and benefits of all state employees, union or not. It is to get rid of some state employees entirely, mainly the ones that provide little or no tangible benefits to the citizens of the state of Wisconsin.
Let's just briefly point out one example of exactly the kind of thing which causes government budget problems. Conveniently, this is a proposal of the very same Governor who is "repairing" the state budget. In fact, this proposal was worked into the very same budget "repair" bill. Any guesses? Yes, that's right. The proposal to separate UW-Madison from the UW System. I haven't read the details of this. Even if we give Walker the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he put this on paper in a way that would remain budget neutral, long term, that's not going to happen. The reason that government agencies (including colleges and universities) that serve similar purposes are often consolidated is because of a duplication of services. And the idea of "shared services." For instance, state fleet vehicles. Yes, the system and UW-Madison will probably need the same number of vehicles, regardless of whether they are one system or two. On the other hand, insurance rates are likely to go up when the risk pool gets split in two. The people who account for the location, condition, and maintenance of these vehicles will now be working for two different employers. Which most likely means that the UW System will keep their current employees and Madison will hire more. The regents who oversee the system will all still be in place, compensation, travel reimbursements, support staff in all. A new board of regents will also need to be added to oversee Madison's operations. Likely, somebody will need to step back and look at the bigger higher education picture in the state of Wisconsin. These studies and evaluations will have to be done by some statewide body, whether an actual department, or a legislature committee (complete with staffers, of course). The bottom line, this proposal does anything but repair the Wisconsin state budget. Notice I have not touched on the merits of the idea itself.
But while Walker is proposing limiting the rights of the employees who few, if any, of even the most conservative or Libertarian Wisconsinites would argue are not needed, he is asking the legislature to turn the page and approve a split in a statewide system that would create many more taxpayer-paid jobs, and create countless duplications of service. My guess, however, is that as long as we can keep the number of TAs, PAs, custodians, campus bus drivers, campus security guards, and other unionized employees the same, Walker's okay with that.
Walker has gotten national media attention with his plan to "fix" Wisconsin's budget. Now, if only he would focus on fixing the budget problem that Republicans claim to see (i.e. big government) instead of expanding the government and paying the most essential state workers less, and removing their rights to collective bargaining, he might be able to set a positive example for the rest of the country.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Walker's Anti-Union Plan
Alright. I am most certainly not pro Union. But the proposal by new Wisconsin governor Scott Walker disgusts me. As a Libertarian, I believe that in the areas where government does need to be involved (police and fire protection, education, infrastructure, etc.) it needs to be run like a business. Most Republicans, I'm sure, would spout that line as well. They point to the fact that the government must be fiscally responsible. I would also argue that beyond fiscal responsibility, this means that they must find the most effective way to provide services, and treat their employees with the same dignity and respect that they expect private businesses to.
On that note, I have two major issues with what little I have read about Walker's proposal. First, the issue of not forcing public employees to pay union dues, and requiring a vote every year to keep these jobs represented by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. In principal, I am all for both of these options. I believe in right to work states, and I believe that they ensure that a) union dues are kept reasonable and affordable, b) that unions continue to represent their constituents, and c), coming out of a and b, that unions are serving their actual purpose, rather than being corrupt bastions of the Democratic political machine, kept in place because people (both employers and employees) have no other options. I do not, however, believe that it is fair to make Wisconsin a right to work state for public employees, and continue to allow other unions to compel membership due payment. Similarly, I am all for requiring an affirmative action on the part of employees to maintain a CBA. It reduces complacency, and ensures that unions are actually acting as unions, rather than as campaign fundraisers for Chicago and New York Democrats. It holds unions accountable to their membership. Again, however, this criteria should be applied to all unions, not just those representing public employees.
My second issue is the idea of a law limiting the positions public service unions are allowed to push for in CBA negotiations. This is ridiculous. This is akin to two teams playing football, and one team deciding that the other team is no longer allowed to use their fourth down, but must punt it. Negotiations are a game, albeit an important one that affects people's livelihood. One side cannot unilaterally change the rules of the game. Unions should not be statutorily limited in the pay increases or other concessions they seek. I do believe that union, especially government union, wages should be kept in line with non-union wage increase rates. But I believe that negotiations are the outlet to express this, not by limiting what options are even on the table.
Not only is this an issue of taking away the rights of unions and their employees, it is also an issue of taking away legal authority granted to other parts of the State and Local governments in Wisconsin. The right to negotiate teachers' contracts is given to the Boards of Education, or, in the case of higher education, the Board of Regents. By limiting the options that are even up for negotiation, Walker and his allies seek to take away the authority of these bodies, as well as the bodies which govern police and fire protection throughout the state.
This is a slap in the face to voters and politicians throughout the state. Walker is essentially saying, "I don't trust you to do your jobs, so I'm going to make it easy to do it the way that I would."
The answer to out of control public services unions is not to limit what they can and can't ask for. It's to elect and appoint responsible people to the positions which are responsible for negotiating CBAs on behalf of the state. Elect and appoint regents, councilmen, and board members who know the word "no," and aren't afraid to use it. Elect and appoint people with the same fiscal viewpoints as the majority of Wisconsinites that elected Walker. Drive a hard line in negotiations, but make sure those negotiations are fair.
Just like private businesses, state agencies should have to deal with absurd Union demands in negotiations. And just like private businesses, those agencies should be willing and able to put their feet down, and say "No," even if that means risking a walkout or a strike. Just like private sector union employees, public employees have medical concerns, children to feed, and mortgages to pay. The state has to have the confidence to essentially dare them to give that up for an indefinite amount of time, rather than receive outrageous pay increases or pension payments. But, the state should not stop them from even asking for those raises.
An anti-union governor? All for it. An anti-union, anti-process, back alley governor? No thanks.
Organizing America a History of Trade Unions
On that note, I have two major issues with what little I have read about Walker's proposal. First, the issue of not forcing public employees to pay union dues, and requiring a vote every year to keep these jobs represented by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. In principal, I am all for both of these options. I believe in right to work states, and I believe that they ensure that a) union dues are kept reasonable and affordable, b) that unions continue to represent their constituents, and c), coming out of a and b, that unions are serving their actual purpose, rather than being corrupt bastions of the Democratic political machine, kept in place because people (both employers and employees) have no other options. I do not, however, believe that it is fair to make Wisconsin a right to work state for public employees, and continue to allow other unions to compel membership due payment. Similarly, I am all for requiring an affirmative action on the part of employees to maintain a CBA. It reduces complacency, and ensures that unions are actually acting as unions, rather than as campaign fundraisers for Chicago and New York Democrats. It holds unions accountable to their membership. Again, however, this criteria should be applied to all unions, not just those representing public employees.
My second issue is the idea of a law limiting the positions public service unions are allowed to push for in CBA negotiations. This is ridiculous. This is akin to two teams playing football, and one team deciding that the other team is no longer allowed to use their fourth down, but must punt it. Negotiations are a game, albeit an important one that affects people's livelihood. One side cannot unilaterally change the rules of the game. Unions should not be statutorily limited in the pay increases or other concessions they seek. I do believe that union, especially government union, wages should be kept in line with non-union wage increase rates. But I believe that negotiations are the outlet to express this, not by limiting what options are even on the table.
Not only is this an issue of taking away the rights of unions and their employees, it is also an issue of taking away legal authority granted to other parts of the State and Local governments in Wisconsin. The right to negotiate teachers' contracts is given to the Boards of Education, or, in the case of higher education, the Board of Regents. By limiting the options that are even up for negotiation, Walker and his allies seek to take away the authority of these bodies, as well as the bodies which govern police and fire protection throughout the state.
This is a slap in the face to voters and politicians throughout the state. Walker is essentially saying, "I don't trust you to do your jobs, so I'm going to make it easy to do it the way that I would."
The answer to out of control public services unions is not to limit what they can and can't ask for. It's to elect and appoint responsible people to the positions which are responsible for negotiating CBAs on behalf of the state. Elect and appoint regents, councilmen, and board members who know the word "no," and aren't afraid to use it. Elect and appoint people with the same fiscal viewpoints as the majority of Wisconsinites that elected Walker. Drive a hard line in negotiations, but make sure those negotiations are fair.
Just like private businesses, state agencies should have to deal with absurd Union demands in negotiations. And just like private businesses, those agencies should be willing and able to put their feet down, and say "No," even if that means risking a walkout or a strike. Just like private sector union employees, public employees have medical concerns, children to feed, and mortgages to pay. The state has to have the confidence to essentially dare them to give that up for an indefinite amount of time, rather than receive outrageous pay increases or pension payments. But, the state should not stop them from even asking for those raises.
An anti-union governor? All for it. An anti-union, anti-process, back alley governor? No thanks.
Organizing America a History of Trade Unions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)