America congratulates and reveres its fighting men. They must. They keep saying it over and over again. Even during a play-by-play sports telecast the commentator will say, somewhat unctuously I think, “this is for all those brave men who are fighting for our way of life etc…” Don Cherry likes to do the same. Whenever he seems to be short of something to say he invokes his patriotism and makes reference to our men in uniform. It’s all part of an ongoing rant. Not that it is without merit. There are men fighting and dying. Whether or not the cause is worth fighting and dying for is quite another discussion.
You would think, with all this reverence for them, that returning servicemen would be granted the rewards they deserve. In olden times, as recently perhaps as the Great War, returning veterans, some of them badly damaged, would be given very short shrift. My favourite was the man who occupied a spot outside an office building at Bay and Adelaide. He sold pencils. He was legless. Earlier, perhaps during the Napoleonic Wars crippled soldiers would return home and be given absolutely nothing.
That is all supposed to have changed. But in the last few years, in the U.S. there has been considerable criticism of the way VA (Veterans Affairs) deals with disabled veterans.
Now there is an organization called “RepForVets.” It seems that even heroes need an advocate. In their publicity the organization says: “The VA works for the government. The Rep For Vets works for you.”
Am I getting this right? Is this organization saying that Veterans Affairs (this is in the U.S. remember) is like some kind of insurance company? Insurance companies are famous for exploring every avenue of escape before paying a claim. It’s their business. They want to minimize outlay and maximize profits. But the VA??
After readying about this organization I look with jaundiced eyes at the scenes often seen on TV, of how the returning guys are all heroes and how nothing is too good for them.
Obviously there is a shortfall between intentions and reality. It may be true that there are returning veterans who will try to use the system to make gains to which they are not entitled. But having put their lives at risk, I wonder who can be so cynical about their need for assistance, real or imagined.
I will find myself watching scenes which could only be described a pious hypocrisy. Flag waving is easy, until it starts costing the “hard-working” (don’t you love that description?) taxpayer.
An ironic sidebar to the story: The VA health services are supplied by the government. Their post-battle care, along with care for people like Senators and Congressman is paid for by the taxpayer and administered by bureaucrats. Somehow, this single-pay system actually works. Which makes you wonder why the Republicans describe “Obama-care” as a “job-killer.”
Thursday, February 24, 2011
GREATER GOOD FOR THE GREATER NUMBER
I continue to weigh in one more events of the past week. You know where I will be coming from on the issue of the Wisconsin ‘budget” problem.
I start with an economic truth: the prosperity of the middle class is the most important element in a healthy economy. Agreed?
No force has been greater in expanding that middle class than trade unions. Historically, we had the upper classes, the owners of industry and resources, and the “working class” struggling millions who worked long hours for low pay. The arrival of collective bargaining allowed millions to share in the prosperity. It was good for everyone. Henry Ford, never a friend of labour unions, realized that his workers had to earn enough to buy the cars they made. He may have been paternalistic, but he made sense – just this once. His move also was to thwart the organization of unions in his company by keeping ahead of the demand. In Canada we had a perfect example of how a non-union company remained clear of labour disruptions. Dofasco Steel in Hamilton was always a little ahead of the curve. When Stelco went on strike Dofasco waited until after the settlement and gave its workers a comparable, even a touch higher, increase. Do you believe that the Japanese non-union car makers actually survive by paying low wages? Certainly not. They, for the most part, try to keep up with industry standards, standards that have been set by the unions.
The U.S. is, among industrialized countries, one of the least unionized. The Taft-Hartley Act and all the “Right to work” legislation” has seen to that. What’s more, companies upset by finicky unions simply moved to a state where unions were not supported by government. Unfortunately even those “right to work” states have felt the same pinch as bottom-feeding industries go offshore to where wages are controlled totally by the companies with the support of industry-favourable government.
The latest figures coming out of the Wisconsin standoff demonstrate again that more that half of the American public does not support unions. (I’m sure a similar, if smaller number, would apply to this country.) The anti-union people complain that people are being paid too much. They will always mutter the same silly stuff: I’m not making as much as they are” or “In a time of unemployment, why should they be exempted?” That’s just bad-mouthing. Would they be happier if working people were all punished for having the nerve to actually try to work for better wages, working conditions and benefits?” They would be. They are. There is almost no stopping the rush to unreality by the union-haters.
They characterize unions as corrupt. (There have been corrupt union leaders like Hoffa, and unions controlled by organized crime. There have also been corrupt companies and management.) People claim that unions are “always going on strike.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Statistically the great majority of labour disputes end up being amicably settled without a strike. But the work stoppages are the best remembered. In fact, in Toronto we have a mayor whose popularity is based in part on his anti-union stance. Take away collective bargaining rights from transit workers. Privatize garbage collection. On the latter I have to weigh in with a comment: “The private company that takes over will only take over the service if they can make a profit.” Here again, too many people are angry that anyone as lowly as a garbage collector can earn enough money to own his own home or a car, or anything that makes him part of the even the lower end of the middle class.
The governor of Wisconsin is being disingenuous. Everyone knows it – even the Tea Party nut-bars. The public service unions have all told the governor that they will make the concessions he needs to balance the budget. He says his move to deny collective-bargaining rights, effectively busting the unions, is simply to balance the budget. He is bending to public sentiment. Several other state governors are on the same path. They simply hate unions. And for that they are getting a great deal of applause.
But to disregard the whole issue of unions, what benefit can there possibly be to impoverishing your fellow citizens? The word for that is “schadenfreude” which literally means pleasure at the suffering of others.
Alright, you say, there is no denying that historically unions were good for society. Everything has changed. Industry can go offshore for cheaper labour. More and more entrepreneurs are creating wealth. Most of all, the Industrial Revolution is over and has long since been replaced by the world of service innovation.
Everyone remembers Alvin Toffler for his book “Future Shock” published more than 50 years ago. Not as well remembered, but for me, more important, was “The Third Wave” published in 1980. He joined most of the other futurists and economists in declaring that the Industrial Revolution was over and we have entered the Information Age. And it is true that from virtually nothing twenty years ago, new wealth-makers have arrived. Silicon Valley in California and around Boston, our own in the Ottawa area (and don’t forget Research in Motion is Waterloo) have created new billionaires. In Austin Texas there are ordinary hi-tech workers who became what they call Dell-ionaires. Ordinary folks at Dell in Austin became rich from their share of the piece. (Countless millions have also gone broke, especially when the dot-com bubble burst and sent the NASDAQ Index from over 6,000 to less than 2,000.)
But even in with the arrival of high tech prosperity, companies add to their bottom line by outsourcing to countries where salaries are low and skills high – notably India. The evidence for most of us is in the call centres where you call for technical assistance and the phone is answered by someone in Manila or Mumbai.
The entire issue of union survival sparked by the Wisconsin crisis is best commented on by Nobel laureate economic Paul Krugman: “anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side. You don’t have to love unions; you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy.”
It’s not about unions and collective bargaining – it’s about social justice.
I am not against entrepreneurism. I value people who will put themselves at risk to climb toward success. But that is not everyone. We are simply not all the same. Is it wrong to look for safety and security? Is it wrong to want to bargain for your own future? I know, it is not the same kind of risk-taking, but it also does not come with the same potential rewards. To each his own.
What do all these people have against the principle of a collective agreement? The idea is, or should be, enshrined in the fabric of American life. There is implicitly a collective agreement between business and the people. Without Americans as customers – who buys their goods? Without Americans as workers, who creates their wealth? Of course, most of that has gone out the window as “entrepreneurism” (translation: every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost) captures hearts and minds. Most people are not entrepreneurial. They bring their skills, some of them primitive, to the marketplace and hope that someone will engage them. They have no product, no inventory – just ability, or brains, or willingness. Does that reduce them to second class citizens, unworthy of being able to bargain?
Business and industry does not have to go to a bargaining table to raise prices or pay extravagant bonuses to senior executives. But wait, I DO understand that business people are essentially risk-takers. They are betting that their risk will be worth the returns. Some go broke. Some prosper. But it is their choice. Most people are risk-averse. They have skills that can be used. That should never put them in the position of having to fight for their rights, their rights to join together and present a united front. Hey, I’m talking about schoolteachers, policemen, people essential to the well-being of the community.
I hope this blog has not made you too angry to at least – think about it.
I start with an economic truth: the prosperity of the middle class is the most important element in a healthy economy. Agreed?
No force has been greater in expanding that middle class than trade unions. Historically, we had the upper classes, the owners of industry and resources, and the “working class” struggling millions who worked long hours for low pay. The arrival of collective bargaining allowed millions to share in the prosperity. It was good for everyone. Henry Ford, never a friend of labour unions, realized that his workers had to earn enough to buy the cars they made. He may have been paternalistic, but he made sense – just this once. His move also was to thwart the organization of unions in his company by keeping ahead of the demand. In Canada we had a perfect example of how a non-union company remained clear of labour disruptions. Dofasco Steel in Hamilton was always a little ahead of the curve. When Stelco went on strike Dofasco waited until after the settlement and gave its workers a comparable, even a touch higher, increase. Do you believe that the Japanese non-union car makers actually survive by paying low wages? Certainly not. They, for the most part, try to keep up with industry standards, standards that have been set by the unions.
The U.S. is, among industrialized countries, one of the least unionized. The Taft-Hartley Act and all the “Right to work” legislation” has seen to that. What’s more, companies upset by finicky unions simply moved to a state where unions were not supported by government. Unfortunately even those “right to work” states have felt the same pinch as bottom-feeding industries go offshore to where wages are controlled totally by the companies with the support of industry-favourable government.
The latest figures coming out of the Wisconsin standoff demonstrate again that more that half of the American public does not support unions. (I’m sure a similar, if smaller number, would apply to this country.) The anti-union people complain that people are being paid too much. They will always mutter the same silly stuff: I’m not making as much as they are” or “In a time of unemployment, why should they be exempted?” That’s just bad-mouthing. Would they be happier if working people were all punished for having the nerve to actually try to work for better wages, working conditions and benefits?” They would be. They are. There is almost no stopping the rush to unreality by the union-haters.
They characterize unions as corrupt. (There have been corrupt union leaders like Hoffa, and unions controlled by organized crime. There have also been corrupt companies and management.) People claim that unions are “always going on strike.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Statistically the great majority of labour disputes end up being amicably settled without a strike. But the work stoppages are the best remembered. In fact, in Toronto we have a mayor whose popularity is based in part on his anti-union stance. Take away collective bargaining rights from transit workers. Privatize garbage collection. On the latter I have to weigh in with a comment: “The private company that takes over will only take over the service if they can make a profit.” Here again, too many people are angry that anyone as lowly as a garbage collector can earn enough money to own his own home or a car, or anything that makes him part of the even the lower end of the middle class.
The governor of Wisconsin is being disingenuous. Everyone knows it – even the Tea Party nut-bars. The public service unions have all told the governor that they will make the concessions he needs to balance the budget. He says his move to deny collective-bargaining rights, effectively busting the unions, is simply to balance the budget. He is bending to public sentiment. Several other state governors are on the same path. They simply hate unions. And for that they are getting a great deal of applause.
But to disregard the whole issue of unions, what benefit can there possibly be to impoverishing your fellow citizens? The word for that is “schadenfreude” which literally means pleasure at the suffering of others.
Alright, you say, there is no denying that historically unions were good for society. Everything has changed. Industry can go offshore for cheaper labour. More and more entrepreneurs are creating wealth. Most of all, the Industrial Revolution is over and has long since been replaced by the world of service innovation.
Everyone remembers Alvin Toffler for his book “Future Shock” published more than 50 years ago. Not as well remembered, but for me, more important, was “The Third Wave” published in 1980. He joined most of the other futurists and economists in declaring that the Industrial Revolution was over and we have entered the Information Age. And it is true that from virtually nothing twenty years ago, new wealth-makers have arrived. Silicon Valley in California and around Boston, our own in the Ottawa area (and don’t forget Research in Motion is Waterloo) have created new billionaires. In Austin Texas there are ordinary hi-tech workers who became what they call Dell-ionaires. Ordinary folks at Dell in Austin became rich from their share of the piece. (Countless millions have also gone broke, especially when the dot-com bubble burst and sent the NASDAQ Index from over 6,000 to less than 2,000.)
But even in with the arrival of high tech prosperity, companies add to their bottom line by outsourcing to countries where salaries are low and skills high – notably India. The evidence for most of us is in the call centres where you call for technical assistance and the phone is answered by someone in Manila or Mumbai.
The entire issue of union survival sparked by the Wisconsin crisis is best commented on by Nobel laureate economic Paul Krugman: “anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side. You don’t have to love unions; you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy.”
It’s not about unions and collective bargaining – it’s about social justice.
I am not against entrepreneurism. I value people who will put themselves at risk to climb toward success. But that is not everyone. We are simply not all the same. Is it wrong to look for safety and security? Is it wrong to want to bargain for your own future? I know, it is not the same kind of risk-taking, but it also does not come with the same potential rewards. To each his own.
What do all these people have against the principle of a collective agreement? The idea is, or should be, enshrined in the fabric of American life. There is implicitly a collective agreement between business and the people. Without Americans as customers – who buys their goods? Without Americans as workers, who creates their wealth? Of course, most of that has gone out the window as “entrepreneurism” (translation: every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost) captures hearts and minds. Most people are not entrepreneurial. They bring their skills, some of them primitive, to the marketplace and hope that someone will engage them. They have no product, no inventory – just ability, or brains, or willingness. Does that reduce them to second class citizens, unworthy of being able to bargain?
Business and industry does not have to go to a bargaining table to raise prices or pay extravagant bonuses to senior executives. But wait, I DO understand that business people are essentially risk-takers. They are betting that their risk will be worth the returns. Some go broke. Some prosper. But it is their choice. Most people are risk-averse. They have skills that can be used. That should never put them in the position of having to fight for their rights, their rights to join together and present a united front. Hey, I’m talking about schoolteachers, policemen, people essential to the well-being of the community.
I hope this blog has not made you too angry to at least – think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)