Posts Tagged ‘Unions’

You are only hurting yourselves, you imbécile.

Over the past 3 or so months, I have been hit by many healthcare reform proponents using a very consistent message that makes me think MoveOn.org penned a script to use when confronted with rational opposition.  They all use the highway system as an example of a central government success story and want to apply it to the healthcare reform debate.

I see two issues with this.  First, what similarities are there between building and maintaining highways and imposing a centralized approach to healthcare services?  It’s not size relative to the economy.  Highway infrastructure accounts for less than 1% of GDP while healthcare is upwards of 16%.  It’s not employment, only 600,000 work in the government highway system versus the 14 million plus that work in the healthcare industry.  Maybe it’s in the rate of innovation of the two sectors?  No.  Actually, there is no rational reason for using the highway system as an example.

Second, how could anyone look to the US highway system as a great example of success in centralized government manipulation?  I’m not even sure where to start.  How many of you have been driving home during rush hour to see the highway crew block off one or two lanes for a mile or so and have no one out there working?  How much over budget was the Big Dig of Massachusetts?  Well, they did finish it on time… NOT!  How many stories are there of payoffs and corruption within the highway construction industry?  Answer:  Too many.

What about the fact that most roads are locally managed and most commercial traffic flow over local roads, not highways.  Let’s not forget that government highways may be a monopoly within long distance transportation by automobile, it is not a monopoly of all transportation (private rails constitute the majority of goods transported, air freight is a large business that circumvents the highway system, barges also are a reasonably good transporter outside the highway system for the central part of the US).  I’m also very impressed with the myopic view these people have when they use the highway system as an example.  Do they not read about the crumbling infrastructure of our national bridges and tunnels?  Is that what they want our healthcare system to turn into?

What seems lost on some are the vast differences between these two systems.  Our highway infrastructure is long lasting (20-60 years between replacement cycles), static in the area of innovation (possibly due to government regulations), and not a monopoly of all transportation.  Our healthcare system and the proposed reform policies are completely different.  Innovation within the current healthcare system is enormous and funded by private enterprises on the order of 10 to 1 over government funds.  All medical services have a variable cost component that is significantly above zero unlike our highway system where an extra truck or two are hard to notice on the wear and tear of the infrastructure.   Oh, and let’s not forget that the proposed reform policies are attempting to turn the entire healthcare industry into a monopoly, not just a very small fraction of the medical care infrastructure.

I think it says a lot about their position when the best example of centralized government manipulation is the US highway system.  Remember this note the next time you hit a pothole.

Not sure if any of you have spent time reading up on the New Haven, Conn firefighter discrimination lawsuit, but you should.  Here is the article that does a nice job summarizing the issue. 

Very briefly, it’s about a group of white and hispanic firefighters that sat for an exam for promotion, passed, and then saw the test results thrown out because no african-americans passed, therefore deeming the test invalid and biased.  It’s a great case of groups fighting for equal outcomes rather than individuals working for equal opportunities and productive outcomes.

Of course, I haven’t seen the test but I find it really hard to believe that a well structured test to differentiate those that know what to do in case of a fire from those that don’t would also be a great tool to determine if someone is black, white, brown, cream-colored, etc.  And to be clear, to have the exam written in english and to presume that individuals can read the exam should not constitute distinguishing traits of applicants.

What I find even more horrifying is the idea that a lot of money was spent on people that most likely know little of firefighting to develop a fair and balanced exam.  And that the test was then presented to the municipal government (more individuals that know little if anything about firefighting) to make sure it wouldn’t cause political problems.

When your house or apartment is on fire, are you, the one that ultimately pays for the firefighting service, more concerned that those that arrive on the scene equally represent the national demographics or would you rather have them capable of doing their job?

With General Motors filing for bankruptcy today and our esteem federal government taking operational control (has our government ever been successful at turning a real profit?), I thought it timely that the Wall Street Journal would find  someone that has experience in a government’s running of a car company.  In this article,  Lt. Gen Pacepa, once a Soviet bloc car czar, describes his experiences and lack of successes.  Enjoy!

Oh, and remember that under the new union agreement (you know, the one that gives the UAW about 17% of the new GM while the more secure bond holders get much less), GM is not allowed to import from their global factories the more fuel efficient small cars made for non-US markets.  Bravo to the union for struggling along with us and our environment.

Those that favor a libertarian viewpoint to education get a bad rap.  More often than not, people that favor independent school education (i.e. school choice) are labeled elitists, unwilling to spend time and effort in the public school system to fix those items found objectionable.  Instead of working to make the system better, they prefer to just write a check to a private institution. 

From my own experience, I think those thoughts are off the mark.  Mrs. H and I are ones that have selected an independent elementary school for our offspring.  There are times when I feel people look at us as though we are escaping some form of responsibility towards our community.  Maybe I’m paranoid, but I get the feeling from some that if we were to choose to spend less time making money (i.e. working) and more time with our children’s public school system, we could impact the results and be a contributor to the community.

But the truth is we are not escaping our responsibility, we are embracing it.  And we need to work harder in order to afford that desired responsibility.  When the beautiful Mrs. H and I made the decision, our local public school was facing economic hardship and looking to cut expenses (which continues to this day).  Instead of looking to the administrative departments, they went directly to reducing the teacher ranks (knowing it improves their chances of raising taxes by threatening the harshest punishment).  Parents had little opportunity to resist.  Some in the area even offered to teach certain classes (such as art) but the school dismissed the idea as it would go against the union contract.  We, the local community, were being held hostage to the whims of the teachers’ union and the bureaucracy that has grown around our public school system. 

Now, the cuts weren’t the main reason we went the independent school route.  The primary advantage to an independent school education is the ability to tailor the education to the child’s needs.  If you perform a web search on learning styles, you will see much research on the topic with the number of styles ranging from 3 up to at least 8.  To assume that every public school can teach to every child’s strength seems highly unlikely to me.  (This is especially true when public systems are increasingly making the decision to raise the student-teacher ratio, and forced to bend to the federal and state authorities with regard to standardized tests.  The focus has been placed on standardizing the process (for efficiency sake) and esoteric scoring mechanisms and taken away from optimizing a child’s ability to develop their own individual thought process).

Not unique to our independent school, we have parents that have each of their children at completely different schools.  It makes it hard from the standpoint of logistics, but the parents feel the effort is justified in order to get the best learning environment for each child.  To judge these parents as irresponsible members of the community would be harsh and misguided.

A major issue with those against independent schools is their limited definition of community.  Implicit in their comment is a desire to focus on the community as defined by a locale that was defined by politicians and bureaucrats.  What makes the community defined by location any more important than the community I have with our children’s school?  Most of the parents live within 15 miles of the school, which actually brings a wider perspective rather than a narrower, geographical view to the world. 

And with regards to parent involvement, most independent schools couldn’t exist without the daily involvement of their parent population.  In order to lower the costs, independent schools look to leverage the skills of those in the school community and have garnered high volunteer rates because of it.  I would argue that we in the independent school world actually are more involve in the educational process, sitting on the various boards and committees within the school.  Willing to dedicate the time because we can impact the results.  Also, when times get tough, we look for all options to cut expenses with the last being anything that directly touches our children’s education.  I know this from direct experience with our school during the current economic downturn.

When unions and bureaucrats get involved, the first phrase out of their mouths is ‘laying off teachers’ as they know that they can always hold us hostage for more tax dollars.  And the parents have little choice but to pay what is demanded of them. 

Just imagine a world where each and every local elementary school has to compete for children rather than being given a monopoly for their particular geographic location.  When times get tough, do you think the administrators would be arguing about how many teachers to lay off?  Do you think the parents would stand for it?  I know from my limited experience, they would not.

There are many people discussing if government threatened hedge funds to take less during the Chrysler bankruptcy.  Implied in these discussions/opinions is that hedge funds are dirty, greedy, evil people looking to profit from others’ misfortunes.  Most definitely some are evil, much like individuals in general.  But what does that have to do with the government’s actions?

That whole discussion misses the point and is completely irrelevant to the fact that the government got involved with the automakers bankruptcy filing and enacted policy, ignoring the Rule of Law.  The fact is the government forced secure creditors (Chrysler made very specific promises to them giving them first rights to all assets in case of bankruptcy) to take less than due to them and gave considerably more to the UAW who were unsecured creditors (Chrysler made promises to them but the union workers were well aware that they were behind the secure creditors in case of bankruptcy).  Who held the secure debt is immaterial to this case as the Rule of Law is not being followed.  And it’s our own government not following it!

If you want to see the unintended consequences of these governmental dictates, please refer to page C2 of today’s Wall Street Journal or to recent comments from Bill Gross of Pimco (the largest steward of debt instruments in the US).  When the government changes the rules after the fact, no private capital will want to align with them to help solve the liquidity problems.  Or, if they do, they will require outsized returns to take on the outsized risks.  This only increases the costs of capital movement, therefore lowers the actual movement of capital which only drives the economic decline farther down.

This is exactly what happened in the 1930′s as the government continued to enact legislation that changed the rules after the fact.  This caused private capital to move/stay on the sidelines.  CEO’s decided to wait to buy new equipment and/or hire.  Capital providers demanded a higher return given the government’s involvement.  Investment, which drives job growth, stalls.  Quality of living drops.

Question:  Why does it matter if a hedge fund owns any of the Chrysler debt?  Does anyone feel it fair to treat them as less-than-equal investors?  If so, how do you want to parse out the good hedge funds (those managing the money for charities and widows) from the bad ones?  Who is to say that one man’s money is more ‘ethical’ than someone elses?  And what does any of that have to do with the government disobeying the Law?

Here is a nice letter responding to the Mr. Obama’s threats to the Chrysler bondholders that refuse to let the UAW steal their assets.  This is just one more example of the government whimsically favoring some individuals more than others.

Courtesy of Freelance Photography

I just had to point out this article.  It talks about violent rallies that occurred yesterday in various countries (those mentioned were all in Europe).  This is so perverse that it needs to be called out.  Those rallying were all anti-capitalist groups; the Greek trade union GSEE, the French union CFE-CGC, the French Socialist Party.  They were rioting, demanding the government do something to get them jobs.  Please remember that all of these countries practice socialism, not capitalism. 

They all have government meddling in their daily lives.  The rioting yesterday shows the depth of their belief in socialism as they were out demanding that the government GIVE them jobs or FIND a solution to what ails them. 

It’s funny to think back 2 weeks to the United States Tea Party rallies where hundreds of thousands came out to show their frustration WITH government involvement.  Let that soak in for a few minutes.  ( One hippopotamus, two hippopotamus, three hippopotamus…).  People in socialistic countries demonstrate to force their governments to find solutions to problems.  People in the United States (an almost capitalistic country, at least in the past) came out to demonstrate for the government to lessen its impact on the Individual. 

I find that poetic.  To state the obvious, the United States has many, many problems that need to be solved.  But what was evident from the Tea Parties were Individuals wanting to control the process to find solutions.  In socialist countries, they rely on groups to demonstrate for a new tit to suck.

A nice opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal concerning the US auto manufacturers and how they, to evade bankruptcy, will essentially give themselves to the federal government and to the unions; the two forces that can be directly tied to their failure.  I find it perverted to see that the companies can so blantantly treat some obligations so differently from others by attributing more value to the union and federal government obligations over those of the other debt holders.  Instead of going through the LEGAL route of filing for bankruptcy protection which would lead to a better chance of fair treatment of all concerned, the government’s heavy hand of injustice prevails once more. 

Once finalized, let’s see if we have the same choices of buying from Toyota, Honda, Kia.  Also let’s watch to see if the government gets involved with unionizing the implants.  They, the government and union, have increased the stakes and are dealing from a stacked deck. 

Actually, this gives a new meaning to ‘public transportation.’

While doing some actual work I came across this poll performed by Gallup.  The title presents the findings quite clearly, “Majority Receptive to Law Making Union Organizing Easier.”  Well, there you have it.  A majority (narrow at best when considering error rates in polls) think organized labor is a good thing.  Yes, that makes sense.  Let’s make it easier for a group to dictate inflexible work rules and above market pay scales not tied to productive output.  Go America!

Oh well, I’m getting use to be in the minority. 

With a name such as “Employee Free Choice Act “, it could be surprising to some that the number in favor is not higher.  I mean, who could be AGAINST employee’s free choices?  Well, like much in this world these days, the intent is not always in sync with the words used.  In this case, the main goal of the union lobbyists is removing the secret ballot, allowing organizers to bully the employee ranks.  That sure sounds like freedom to choose to me, no?

What made me laugh a little was this graph:

Interesting how the more people closely following it (implying how much they know of it), the more they are against it.  Hmmm.

What does this say to you?  To me, it says that more people need to say “No Opinion” if they have no clue.  An uninformed opinion only dilutes the conversation and allows for some to take advantage of many.