My favorite place for pizza in Madison is Ian's. My kids go there in the summer for macaroni and cheese pizza. They order it because it sounds so fun, but then they don't eat it.
Ian's is located right on the Wisconsin State Capitol, where 70,000 people are protesting that Governor Walker is repealing almost all collective bargaining rights of public workers. For the last six days of protests, Ian's has been taking orders from all over the world — Korea, Egypt, New Zealand, and 51 states ' to deliver pizzas to the protesters. Ian's keeps track of worldwide pizza support on a blackboard:
It's a nice story. But the issue in Wisconsin is more fundamental than pro-labor or anti-labor. The issue is that the workforce is changing. Some of the groups having the hardest time dealing with this change are the unions, and protesting change is not going to help.
1. Recognize when you're in a dead sector, and shift.
I don't think we need unions anymore. I think they are leftover from a different type of workplace and a different type of economy. I am not revolutionary in saying that we don't need unions.
In general, I'd have to say that the non-union part of the work world is sick of unions wielding insane powers that are anachronistic and unrealistic. Maybe I could understand this if it was 1880 and we had children working in factories. Maybe I could understand this if all government work were as unappealing as being a garbage collector. But in fact, government jobs are so insanely cushy, for their stability, that it's one of Gen Y's favorite sectors to work.
So many people are frantically reacting to a shifting job market ' journalists, travel agents, lawyers, all these sectors are changing rapidly right now, and careers are being destroyed. But other opportunities are growing. Instead of lamenting that your job is changing for the worst, find out what new jobs are emerging because of the change, and make a change yourself.
2. Create stability for yourself with new career tools.
A sustainable career today involves constant job changes, lots of career changes, and an entrepreneurial spirit. For example, the average Gen Y-er starts looking for a job on the third day of their current job. Not because they are disloyal, but because they are realistic in that no job lasts forever, and few last even two years. Career changes used to be something saved for mid-life crises, but today, people can expect to change careers five times, which means that the idea of a pension is off the radar. Finally entrepreneurship is so popular today because it's a safety net for an unreliable workplace.
Unions are not part of this equation. Unions trade on their ability to protect peoples' jobs over the long-term. But this assurance is ananchronistic and not appropriate for the reality of today's workforce.
3. Stop focusing on the meta. Just fix your life.
So many people say they can't get a job because it's a bad economy. But you know what? There are enough jobs. You can't get a job because you're bad at job hunting. You're bad at marketing yourself and you're bad at shifting as the economy shifts.
No career was ever saved by blaming someone else for your troubles. So look, it's true that Scott Walker was selective in the unions he's trouncing. He's picking on teachers and leaving police alone. So, yes, it's conniving, but so what? Of course he has to be conniving to disband government unions.
But it doesn't matter, because the demise of government benefits is inevitable. It's inevitable that unions would be killed ' either by lack of interest or government action. Their time has come. Stop blaming people and just move on.
4. Stop picking jobs based on long-term benefits.
This is a worldwide problem, not a Wisconsin problem. So if you think it's not gonna happen to you, you're wrong. The era of benefits is over, so stop picking your jobs based on the benefits.
Here's the math: Baby boomers are huge, Gen X is relatively tiny, which means demographically speaking, there are not enough people in this country to support the generation that is retiring.
(I will now quote tons of economist things from my brother, Marc, who has a PhD from University of Chicago in economics and he's smart enough to go into hedge funds instead of teaching, but not so smart that he doesn't stop talking to me even though he thinks every time I write about him on my blog I misquote him.)
Anyway, he says this demographics thing is a worldwide problem, and it is worst for countries like Japan, France, and China, where the birth rate is tiny compared to the earlier generation. (The developed economies that do not have this problem are the Middle East and Israel.
"What? I said to my brother. We don't put Israel in the Middle East?"
"Economist consider Israel's economy to be tied to Europe's." )
The only way to fix this problem is to renege on the benefits that states have promised government workers. The US economy simply cannot grow enough to solve the problem any other way.
5. Getting fired is a gift.
It is absolutely insane that teachers in unions cannot be fired. One of the first things Michael Bloomberg, mayor of NYC, did when he got control of the public schools is that he started firing teachers who did not perform well. He had a knock-down drag-out fight with the union and he won.
Because how else can schools improve if teachers can't lose their jobs? You know what? Some of those tenured teachers suck. We all know that. And it's not helping anyone ' the teachers or the kids ' to keep teachers who can't teach. One of the best part of a fluid workforce is that you have to find where you fit well in order to get some security.
Wisconsin public schools are among the lowest performing in the country. So it makes sense to me that this is one of the first teacher's unions to get dissolved. And, this is a great example of how a union has outlasted its usefulness to the community.
6. Change is exciting. It opens new doors.
Look at Ian's. They watched changed and they figured out where they fit in, and they actually did well by embracing change. You can do that, too. Don't blame other people for your problems. Don't try to stop the path of change. Each of us has gifts that we can use in any type of workforce. We just need to be flexible enough to see our own potential.
Subscribe -- free!
You are an idiot.
Posted by Matt on February 21, 2011 at 9:09 am | permalink |
Sadly, Matt is an idiot. I'm an economist and someone who works in organizational change and effectiveness, a field I added formally in my fifties because life and job situations have morphed over the years. i also like variety. And though reality often bites and bites hard), it's still reality.
Granted it's scary, but change, like it or not, is also the greatest avenue for opportunity. This kind of change happens to be healthy in the long term, and imperative in the short term.
Posted by karenyvonp@gmail.com on February 21, 2011 at 9:40 am | permalink |
Sadly Karen is an idiot. First off she's an economist which is nothing more than a gypsy fortune teller in training. She's a member of the hindsite club.
Secondly, unions may be bad but they are not worse than greedy business owners. Unions were the result of bad management and are still needed but we are entering into a new era of extreme bad management when it comes to employee working conditions.
Posted by Mike on February 22, 2011 at 3:14 am | permalink |
But the public isn't a greedy business owner. You're confused here.
Posted by Belinda Gomez on February 22, 2011 at 4:06 pm | permalink |
"But the public isn't a greedy business owner. You're confused here."
"As if" no boss in the public sector could be abusive, no public employee ever could be asked to work in unsafe working conditions… You don't have to be in the private sector or even in a profit-making business for your employees to need representation.
Posted by Merlin Dorfman on March 28, 2011 at 9:59 am | permalink |
This political nonsense finally made me unsub from your blog.
Attacks on unions by a politician funded by the Koch brothers, who made a crisis up (by new spending *creating* a deficit since taking office), and who are being bussed in via the Tea Party, who's massively funded by the Koch brothers.
Nothing's changing lest we fall asleep and let it.
Posted by Michael on February 21, 2011 at 9:13 am | permalink |
I don't typically comment on posts, but I felt like I should point out how misplaced your advice is.
While I personally agree that unions currently wield far too much power, the fight at the Capitol is not Unions vs. everyone else. It's the Governor versus Unions, because he is taking out budget shortfalls on them. Further, he is doing it by union busting, which means he is taking away their benefits and cutting their pay while destroying their First Amendment right to assemble (and subsequently, to bargain as a group).
Wisconsin is coming up on massive budget deficits in the next two years, and government workers should rightly take SOME of the weight. They have offered to do so. They've shown themselves willing to compromise, as long as the governor does not bust their union. CONVERSELY, the Governor gave nice corporate tax breaks to his rich friends, while he is attempting to place austerity measurements on everyone else. Do you see the hypocrisy there? I do. The rich should take a fair share of the burden when it comes to closing Wisconsin's budget shortfalls, not the middle and lower classes only.
The people at the Capitol are protesting a government that doesn't weigh all people equally, but favors those with money over those without. The people at the Capitol are protesting against a government which has shown itself to be unjust. They are NOT protesting the status quo, but protesting for real, measurable and fair change.
Posted by JC on February 21, 2011 at 9:20 am | permalink |
Amen.
Posted by Erin on February 21, 2011 at 9:57 am | permalink |
The budget shortfalls are due to tax cuts to corporations.
And the attack on unions is an attack on the money that their PACs contribute to campaigns. Unions are the only major players on the side of the Democrats in elections, and if these Republican governors can bust the unions, they can essentially destroy the Democratic party.
Dwight Eisenhower said: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Posted by Kathy on February 21, 2011 at 10:18 am | permalink |
Penelope – you're way off track with this one. You don't understand the inner workings of politics. Kathy is right, without unions, there are no financial backers of democrats. This is not an attack on unions, it's an attack on democrats by killing their only financial backers.
Our politicians are bought and sold through political advertising. With lobbies and corporate interests on the side of republicans, they have the lion-share of political ad dollars on their side. AD DOLLARS WIN ELECTIONS.
This is an attack on working people of all types. Most states are no longer giving pensions or extended health care to their employees. These budget shortfalls are legacy issues and with corporate tax rates lower than what they used to be, states are having trouble keeping up with the legacy costs. Corporate profits are at an all-time high – it's not time to take it out on public sector workers, who make far less than their private sector counterparts.
Opinions like yours sound exactly like what the corporate-backed Republican media puppets wants you to believe.
Posted by GE Milelr on February 21, 2011 at 10:41 am | permalink |
If the democrats cannot win elections without union backing, then the democrats need a new platform. Politicians that speak to new needs of a new economy and a new demography will be the politicians who deserve to win. Politicians that cannot win without unions probably should not be winning anyway.
The Republicans are in the process of recallibrating their party. Maybe its time for the Democrats to do that as well.
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on February 21, 2011 at 12:44 pm | permalink |
Another Amen.
The lack of empathy in this post is stunning. Did you not see CBS 60 Minutes on Sunday? About the folks in a small Alabama town who no longer receive pensions despite state law requiring cities to do so?
A good union prevents that.
A society and democracy that is about the people first prevents that.
What is the point of profit or society if it doesn't serve the people?
And you are missing the point, there's no need to kill the union to do what the Governor wants to do; cut wages and save money. So why is he doing it?
It shouldn't be 'oh well we are out of money, we're killing the union, too bad so sad for you' it should be 'how do we take care of each other with limited resources?'
Hint: Not by lining your rich friends' pockets.
These are hard times. I hope society's character is strong enough to do the right thing. That mayor in Alabama is still collecting a salary, I wonder how he justifies it given that his actions are killing people?
I know I could never take blood money.
I am really surprised and disheartened at your anti people stance.
M
Posted by NetWriterM on February 21, 2011 at 5:49 pm | permalink |
I wanted to clarify a couple things, so that there is no confusion. First, the Unions vs. Governor is entirely political maneuvering. Second, the economy in WI and elsewhere does not hinge on government workers and what their jobs are. Granted, some positions are overpaid, but many are underpaid relative to private sector employment, which is typically made up for by great benefits.
The post everyone is complaining about misconstrues the protests at the Capitol as purely economic; that is, the workers don't want to lose their jobs because they are maladapted to change. Not so, this is a political problem, not an economic one. The governor is attempted to union bust.
To the recent response about Democrats needed to market better if they want to win, since they shouldn't rely on Unions only for support: the whole discussion is specious. Obviously Democrats receive support from many unions, inner city residents, and pretty much the entire academic scene. Whereas Republicans get much of the uber rich people, and the uneducated (or religious) white people. Marketing works differently in different groups. The Republicans ARE changing their image: from one of a group of screw-ups to one who touts fiscal and moral conservatism with Constitutional backing. That's the image they want to cultivate, though that has nothing to do with what they actually are doing (pro-corporate, anti-citizen legislation). Make sure you can decouple their claimed image from what they actually do.
Posted by JC on February 22, 2011 at 1:21 pm | permalink |
I usually agree with what you post, but the above comments pretty much reflect what I was going to write.
Posted by Dan Strayer on February 21, 2011 at 9:23 am | permalink |
Penelope,
You will get a lot of flack for your comments from the privileged class of government workers, but thank you for your insightful take on the issue. Your analysis refreshes my soul after reading Paul Krugman, et al.
Dan
Posted by dan mangan on February 21, 2011 at 9:23 am | permalink |
This comment is hysterical- comparing Paul Krugman with Penelope Trunk? Thanks for the laughs.
Posted by Working on February 21, 2011 at 10:23 am | permalink |
Agreed.
And also with what Penelope said here:
"Politicians that cannot win without unions probably should not be winning anyway."
(Extremely well said in my opinion.)
Posted by Chris M. on February 21, 2011 at 4:05 pm | permalink |
I agree – this probably has a foundation of trying to cut the money to Dems from Unions (it always frustrated me as a teacher that the union took my dues and then contributed it without my consent). So, I would support stopping this – however, the flip side is that you have to stop corporation contributions as well. It would be unfair to stop one without stopping the other.
Posted by davednh on February 22, 2011 at 5:51 am | permalink |
Great post, Penelope. But forget demographics – that's not the real reason why unions and entitlements aren't relevant anymore.
The industrial era is over, and unions are (were?) part of the industrial era. There are no lifetime jobs anymore, no factories, no corporations that last forever. While I love all that unions accomplished in the 20th century, their role doesn't make sense today.
The oil economy is also over. Oil will reach $200/barrel very soon. The entire economy worldwide will have to shift drastically to reinvent itself as that happens. Everything's going to change.
So we're in the transition to a post-industrial, post-oil economy, and we don't know what it's going to be like. We have to loosen things up, let things move where they need to go. Otherwise, we're chained to an old economy.
I feel sorry for the teachers being first under fire. The other unions will follow. So will farm subsidies, quotas, marketing boards, etc.
So much of what has been familiar is now gone. We have to face that and move on.
Posted by Nancy on February 21, 2011 at 9:24 am | permalink |
Great point about post-oil, Nancy. It's a new way of looking at things. The shift will be huge.
One thing I could not fit into the post, but really struck me, is that my brother explained that the states are in way more debt than they are actually reporting. He says states are allowed to use different accounting principles for pension plans than companies do. But if you apply the same logic and accounting principles to states that you do to companies then roughly speaking, the states are $3 â 6 trillion short in their pensions instead of what they acknowledge, which is a shortage of $1 trillion.
It just really drives home to me that the changes are going to be huge. Way bigger than what we are talking about here, with unions.
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on February 21, 2011 at 12:50 pm | permalink |
"6. Change is exciting. It opens new doors.
Look at Ian's"
Yes, quit your job and you too could be delivering pizzas a week later
Posted by Shaun on February 21, 2011 at 9:24 am | permalink |
Michael Bloomberg is the mayor of NYC.
Posted by Natalie on February 21, 2011 at 9:24 am | permalink |
Thanks. I really surprise myself with the errors I come up with. I even voted for him when I lived in NYC and I still couldn't recall his name…
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on February 21, 2011 at 9:33 am | permalink |
This isn't the only error you came up with. Your entire premise for this essay is just plain wrong. Penelope, you are sadly way out of touch with the real world. And I couldn't begin to enlighten you about the economic greed and political underpinnings of what is breaking down our way of life, our spirits, our sense of optimism, confidence and hope. Thankfully some of your responders are trying to do that with details. But I'll take the time to say this: there are NOT enough jobs in this country. And even if there were, the American education system is so broken, we wouldn't have enough hi-tech workers to fill those positions. And even we DID have an educated population, our labor force wouldn't be cheap enough to compete with China and India. But this is not a problem of unions or benefits. (Check out Germany.) This is result of big business greed, the concentration of wealth at the top and the dismantling of the middle class, all highly complex issues, which you unfortunately do not understand. I can't believe you are part of the delusional group that is protesting its own life support. I am so surprised about this.
Irv
Posted by Irving Podolsky on February 21, 2011 at 11:51 am | permalink |
Irving,
Penelope is right and you are wrong. Nobody cares about your problems or your whining. Deal with it. Learn how to compete in the new global marketplace, or fall by the wayside.
Posted by Mike on February 21, 2011 at 5:51 pm | permalink |
Irving, "there are not enough jobs" is equivalent to saying "nobody is willing to pay me what I want to charge", which implies that "I am not capable enough to be as useful as the money I want." The worker holds all the power — provide utility, get paid for it. Corporations exist only as a means to facilitate this.
Why unions are unnecessary: Suppose you are unhappy with your job. You always have the freedom to leave (in today's world, not necessarily in the past). And once you've left, you can apply elsewhere to receive adequate compensation/benefits. Suppose you look everywhere and can't find a decent job. You could conclude that corporations are all looking to underpay you, but statistically that is unlikely. More likely is that you're just not worth what you're asking for, as is often the case when the economy is rapidly changing.
Incidentally, I'm a high-tech worker who was homeschooled until I was 16, dropped out of college, almost never reads books, and have more work than I can do. We have Wikipedia — why do we even need educational institutions anymore?
Posted by Spencer Tipping on February 21, 2011 at 7:22 pm | permalink |
Irving is absolutely right!
Posted by Vicky on February 21, 2011 at 11:10 pm | permalink |
And with this, my membership to Brazen Careerist ends.
Posted by Sarah Vela on February 21, 2011 at 9:25 am | permalink |
Stick to what you know. Your ignorance of the deeper issues in Wisconsin is breathtaking.
JC has it right.
Posted by Deborah on February 21, 2011 at 9:28 am | permalink |
While I agree on the general view, I strongly disagree on the matter of the unions being useless in modern working environment.
Unions are necessary to make sure that teachers are fired only upon proven incompetency and not because they're old, high paid, or just in unfriendly terms to some director.
Unions are necessary to help those workers who do not have anything more valuable than their arms to sell on the job market, to smoothly transition from a job to another.
Unions are necessary for those workers who cannot identify the new opportunities because they do not have the culture and the knowledge to do so.
Posted by Stray__Cat on February 21, 2011 at 9:31 am | permalink |
So are you saying that unions are necessary to protect those who lack knowledge and culture because they were taught by those incompetent teachers unions are also protecting?
Posted by Salty on February 21, 2011 at 9:47 am | permalink |
They have nothing to sell because they grew up where criminality was the norm. They have nothing to sell because they are 3rd world emigrants who did not get a possibility. They've nothing to sell because they have health issues or they have slight mental retard etc.
I'm not thinking to myself, I'm thinking to the weaker.
Posted by Stray__Cat on February 21, 2011 at 10:39 am | permalink |
Stray_Cat, no other field has this type of "protection". Why should they?
Posted by Kristin on February 21, 2011 at 10:38 am | permalink |
I'm talking unions in general, not this specific case. Penelope says that unions are a remnant of the past. I do not agree, they have the function I described above: guarantee fair rules for everyone and help those who are not strong enough to protect themselves.
Posted by Stray__Cat on February 21, 2011 at 10:44 am | permalink |
Wow — is Ayn Rand writing from the grave here?
You really must acknowledge that there are systemic issues at work here, partly related to the tax code, that give management an outsize power and that reduce worker rights to a small, bad place. It's not simply a matter of "be really good at what you do and someone will pay you," because without unions (which all middle class workers benefit from, whether or not they are unionized) you will be paid less and less. No one is irreplaceable, and there WILL be someone just as talented AND willing to work for less than you. This is called "The Race to the Bottom." First one there is a rotten egg.
I love the protest sign, "United We Bargain, Divided We Beg," because that's where we're headed. See you on the fiefdom, fellow serfs.
Posted by Lisa on February 27, 2011 at 2:09 pm | permalink |
P,
Your comments will not be popular, but many of us out here are thinking the same thing and are afraid to say so to our liberal friends. Something's broken and it needs fixing.
Posted by LKeenan on February 21, 2011 at 9:31 am | permalink |
Personally, I am just about as liberal as they come, but I echo the thought that unions are simply not relevant anymore. It's amazing to see the ire this post has wrought with the unionites….democrats and liberals will only survive is they accept the changing world and the changing needs (or elimination of) collective bargaining.
Posted by Annemarie Donnelly on February 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm | permalink |
I agree, inasmuch as I think teaching is a terrible career choice. It's high-stress, low pay, and I actively warn people away from it because it feeds on youthful idealism and doesn't reward actual excellence.
So, if everybody listens, leaves, and gets non-teaching jobs, problem solved — right?
Posted by WorstProfEver on February 21, 2011 at 9:32 am | permalink |
I am also stopping my subscription to your emails. If this is your real belief, you lack heart. You need to get down and dirty, rub elbows with the working class, and study the history of unions in America. It was not easy winning those rights! There will always be a class of people wanting to makes slaves of the rest of us.
Posted by Judy on February 21, 2011 at 9:33 am | permalink |
Teachers are not "working class".
Posted by Derek on February 21, 2011 at 9:44 am | permalink |
Teachers are not working class? What are they, then? I'm actually intrigued to hear.
Posted by Giovanna on February 21, 2011 at 10:27 am | permalink |
Actually, teachers ($48,267) make less than the average worker ($51,237) in Wisconsin. Source: http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-average-teacher-in-wisconsin-has-a-smaller-salary-than-the-median-wisconsin-household/
I'm no union apologist, but if you're going to argue that unions are bad (as I typically do) you at least have to get your facts right.
Posted by Rob on February 21, 2011 at 11:01 am | permalink |
Teachers also do not work the entire year, whereas the others you compare them to likely do. Are you saying that teachers should be paid as much as everyone else and STILL take 2 months off? Where do I sign??
Posted by Elle on February 21, 2011 at 12:14 pm | permalink |
Elle seems to have completely fallen off the point. It's fine if you don't think a teacher who has two months off but in exchange has to deal with, oh 1st-thru-12th graders five days a week, is worth $48k a year.
Just as long as you understand that you get what you pay for… and if you don't really feel like education is worth it to you, you might as well go ahead and say it. Whether teachers are unionized or not.
Posted by Rob on February 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm | permalink |
Everyone not in the top 1% is working class in this country. Do you live off what you earn, not counting dividends? You're working class.
The reason union-busting and other anti-labor tactics work is because so many Americans think they're living their aspirations rather than their actual lives. The wealth disparity in this country is the greatest it's ever been, and that includes the Gilded Age. That's not the free market, that's tax policy purposely skewed to serve the rich.
Posted by Lisa on February 27, 2011 at 2:12 pm | permalink |
Hi Penelope:
I work in a non-union job. My family also owns a small business which was very hard-hit by the recession. We've gone through awful financial times these last years. I guess I am supposed to be angry at or jealous of union workers, but I'm not going to improve my own situation by wishing worse for others. I believe in a middle class, and no matter what you think of unions – people who have union jobs are middle class Americans.
Union workers I know are family, and friends, and neighbors, not some evil group.
Governmental entities have always had the chance to make government workers pay more for benefits or to have smaller salaries. Schools have always had the process to fire teachers. I see that these groups are blaming unions for jobs they simply didn't do. It's easy to blame the unions instead of doing their own jobs. Negotiate. Document, fire people. There are processes in place for that, but the entities just complain instead of working on them.
I respect your right to say whatever you want, but I just think it's wrong to take away peoples' rights. It isn't just about money or benefits, it's about peoples' right to join collectively in their work-place.
I support workers in Wisconsin!
Amy
Posted by Amy on February 21, 2011 at 9:33 am | permalink |
Well said, Amy.
Posted by Kathy on February 21, 2011 at 10:20 am | permalink |
I completely agree, Amy!
Posted by Dan Strayer on February 21, 2011 at 11:25 am | permalink |
Here here!!!
Posted by Vicky on February 21, 2011 at 11:14 pm | permalink |
You are an idiot, and clearly have never had to struggle.
Also, the mayor of NYC is named Michael.
Posted by Mike on February 21, 2011 at 9:36 am | permalink |
Struggling as in bankruptcy, parental abuse, broken marriage, evictions, inability to tell left from right, Asperger's, discalculia, eating disorders, arrest warrants?
If P is an expert on anything, it's struggling.
Posted by Brad on February 21, 2011 at 11:02 am | permalink |
I am afraid I must disagree with you on this one. We abso-fucking-lutely need unions.
They were put into place for a reason.
It is like saying we no longer need childhood vaccines since most of those diseases have been eradicated.
Posted by Roberta Warshaw on February 21, 2011 at 9:38 am | permalink |
So explain that comparison. Unions for teachers and the workers at the DMV? What does that have to do with measles and mumps?
Posted by Belinda Gomez on February 22, 2011 at 4:10 pm | permalink |
There's a lot of small and large companies that are not union that seem to get by pretty well….
Posted by Annie on March 2, 2011 at 4:55 pm | permalink |
I was not aware of this story at all, being in the Great White North, so thank you for this update. While I don't agree with the approach of targeting entire sectors and victimizing thousands of people's livelihoods and lives to score political points, I do think that the economic reality is such that we can't have it all – we can't have protected jobs and great benefits, career advancement and challenge, access to services and commerce and all the comforts of a first world nation and expect "the government" to pay for it all with little cost to ourselves. 1) the government is funded by the people, and so the money for all those services and things like roads and infrastructure and police officers have to come from us and 2) the government is made up of people, who do what they can within the rules and limits of the system and yes, occasionally screw-up.
Another point to consider is that today's union is not the dedicated band of workers coming together for the betterment of their fellow worker. Today's unions are corporations in and of themselves, with their own self-interest – their continued existence – motivating their work as much if not more than their interest in the workers. Not that Governor Walker's approach to dealing with them is correct, but it is reasonable and perhaps timely to revisit the role and responsibility of unions in the workplace, and reframe it in the context of the new economic and social realities.
Posted by Robyn R. on February 21, 2011 at 9:39 am | permalink |
Huh? Government is *us*. We pay for it. We can choose to use our collective treasure to wage wars or take care of people, which includes educating them, pulling them from burning buildings, finding cures for what ails them, and reaching out a helping hand when they've fallen. However we choose to spend it, we should choose to treat the people who carry out these important works with compassion and fairness. So much depends on them — including private industry.
Posted by Lisa on February 27, 2011 at 8:28 pm | permalink |
Some additional info/commentary.
Posted by Robyn R. on February 28, 2011 at 8:39 pm | permalink |
Absolutely L-O-V-E this post!
America was built through innovation and hard work. Sadly, union's cannot provide either. Technology and global economic growth, along with the unwillingness of unions to adapt, have made unions a negative force.
And, I love the comment about people still looking for jobs not being good at self-promotion. What makes me an entrepreneur is the thought that if I'm good enough for an employer to hire and pay me, then I'm good enough to have the customer pay me instead of the company!
Posted by Jeff Lovingood on February 21, 2011 at 9:39 am | permalink |
Completely agree!
Long time reader and I have to say the reactions are very interesting in calling unions a right.
Posted by Josh on February 21, 2011 at 10:31 am | permalink |
I've been reading you for years, and I believe this is the first time you've ever sided with the right.
Just noting the occasion.
Posted by Brad on February 21, 2011 at 9:41 am | permalink |
A commenter in one of the other blogs I read wondered out loud about the effect of public employment on small business growth in the same location. He commented that where he lives many of the bars are owned by people married to civil servants. It certainly makes sense that, in the US, if your spouse has a "job for life" with gold plated health insurance etc you would have more scope to take a risk and start a coffee shop or a daycare or whatever.
Personally I think we're better off figuring out how we in our department/company/profession/town/etc can get some of what public servants have, in terms of better benefits and some form of job security etc, than stamping our little feet and calling 'em lucky, or lazy, or whining that they have toooo muuuuuch. Apparently I'm in the minority there which baffles me.
Posted by bigcarrot on February 21, 2011 at 9:43 am | permalink |
I disagree about unions. I work for the biggest HMO in California, one of the healthcare models that is being looked to by the current administration for quality and efficiency (because we are the service provider and the insurance company at the same time). I am a neuropsychologist. A few years ago, the psychologists petitioned to join one of the very many unions that exist in the healthcare field, because they were tired of not getting raises. I, very unexpectedly, became a member of a union when I took the job 3 years ago. I have FREE health insurance for my whole family, will have health insurance for life if I work there for 15 years (which will be very easy to do, no changing job or career every 5 years here), I have a 401K AND a protected pension. My salary has gone up 6% a year for the last two years, and we are scheduled to have a 15% raise over the next two years. I have nothing but good things to say about the union I am in. Then again, I'm in one of the few industries that has continued to grow during the recession.
My colleagues who are in private practice have seen their reimbursements go way down in this era of managed care…I have a fully benefited job with a salary, and I am so happy I didn't follow the path of what looked like "easy money" just a few years ago.
Posted by Danielle on February 21, 2011 at 9:48 am | permalink |
They did the same thing for the American car companies. That turned out great didn't it. Benefits are great until you have to cut half the workforce to maintain them.
Posted by Rachel on February 21, 2011 at 11:04 am | permalink |
Exactly right!
Posted by davednh on February 22, 2011 at 6:04 am | permalink |
This is how it always stsrts out the first few years. Look down the line a decade or two and the HMO you work for will be on the verge of bankruptcy and the unions will be stubbornly unwilling to make any concessions. The US already blows more money on health care than any other country with poor results, so I don't think you'll have to wait 20 (maybe not even 10) years to see this play out.
Posted by mysticaltyger on March 17, 2011 at 1:46 pm | permalink |
So 100, 200 years ago, when most Americans farmed, it was important to figure out what worked and do it doggedly, or your family would starve. So doing the same thing over and over was linked to security.
I think this mentality leaked into the early industrial age. It was codified by the unions. Workers just had to show up every day and do the same thing over and over. Then after they'd put in their however many years, they retired and were taken care of until they died. See? Security.
In both situations, work was less about the work and more about finding security.
In this postindustrial age, this kind of security has become a myth. Societally, we probably won't get over it until the last of the boomers are gone.
Posted by jim on February 21, 2011 at 9:49 am | permalink |
There is always good and bad in most things. I don't like the idea of allowing someone to trample on people's rights. And I don't much like a Mayor who is acting unfairly. But I also believe that Unions demands on some things are Unrealistic….Noone should have say over tenure concerning their jobs. It's not realistic. Economic climates change and businesses need to be able to change their payrolls as needed to adapt to the changes. And of course, I agree with Penelope that not all people are right for the jobs they apply for and hence it's good for both parties to be able to see this, and make changes that will help improve both situations. I think situations like that in Michigan need to be dealt with on an individual basis. The one thing that bothers me so far is the Mayors' unwillingness to even talk. Using force is not a government's right except to protect it's country. This alone would make me side with Unions…in spite of the fact that many of them in my experience create more inefficient workplaces…
Posted by .Bryan on February 21, 2011 at 9:51 am | permalink |
Penelope, this is thought provoking (as usual!). This time, though, it doesn't ring completely true to me. You may have confounded a few things here. I'm trying to separate the main arguments from the emotion and the politics.
First, I think you're spot on that all of us need to go where we can maximize our value in the work force. Change IS good, and people with confidence in themselves and their abilities to adapt can maximize their value in any environment. Furthermore, as you frequently describe compellingly, learning new things and succeeding in new circumstances are both inherently rewarding.
Let me point out, though, that change is also frightening. When you want to advocate change this strongly, it can help to address that fear up front. People sometimes tune out when facing arguments, however valid, that they should do something they're terrified of doing. Here I don't suggest separating from the emotion: I'd fully incorporate it. First try meeting people in that very fear; acknowledge it, and provide support (here's what people can do even when they're afraid, here's a way to begin, etc.), so that you help people lay their own groundwork for being convinced of something that shakes their very core.
Second, I think you're also spot on that the cost to the economy of people who don't change when the world does is staggeringly high.
It's true that people who can't change become a burden, not an asset. It's also true that people who aren't assets drag down our country and its economy. But telling this to the people doing the dragging requires special techniques to accomplish anything. No one wants to believe they themselves are the problem. Again, I think you need to deal with their emotion first before hoping to convince them.
Finally, I think you may be carried away in your own emotion or political convictions when you talk about unions. Since when have unions been the ONLY source of the problem? What about people on Wall Street who have made (and continue to make) $$billions by selling the nation's economy down the hole? (No, of course, I have no emotion either!)
I'm not sure picking on unions is fair. Unions have always served a different purpose: to try to equalize the power between the employer and the employed. If individual employees have no voice, then employers are free to abuse them without penalty. Power wins. Fairness goes by the board. And this can happen in today's economy, too; it's not an unheard-of relic of the early industrial age.
But if individual employees band together, they start to approximate the power of the employer. Thus both sides can engage in a legitimate give and take over their issues, without either taking an unfair advantage. Domination over the workforce is replaced by a true marketplace of willing buyer and willing seller, employee and employer both able to respect themselves and each other.
Perhaps you'd do better by blaming employers. The presence of unions is not a free ticket to abandon management responsibility. Unions are supposed to equalize power, not reverse it. Why should management ever concede more than employees are actually worth? (Why should management get more than THEY're worth, either??) If management doesn't do its job of sanity-checking its own performance, unions are hardly to blame. If unions end up wielding an unfair advantage, who let them do so?
I think the larger issue here is that we'd all love a free ride. Who wouldn't want to be paid billions for showing up in a 3 piece suit, sitting in a fancy office, playing with a computer, and convincing colleagues that money drips from his or her mouth? Who says executives are worth thousands of times more than the laborers who produce the product? Why wouldn't the working class want the giveaways that they see others receiving? The human animal is programmed to try to survive, and more resources to help ensure survival will always seem like a good thing at first blush. People would love to have their survival assured, so that they can pursue whatever they find interesting, without worrying about consequences. So more pay will always look good at least in some respects.
If we're going to insist on merit pay (what a extraordinary idea!), let's do so across the board. And let's not blame unions for trying to get for their members what executives have long secured for themselves. Let's blame executives for giving anyone — government workers, CEOs, or Wall Street movers and shakers — more than they're truly worth. And then, YES, let's remind ourselves to keep moving to the upcoming sector where we can be worth more.
Posted by csts on February 21, 2011 at 9:52 am | permalink |
> Who says executives are worth thousands of times more than the laborers who produce the product?
The (job) market does.
Union workers invest in low risk job choices when they begin their career. The value of their earnings portfolio increases at a slow, constant pace.
Executives invested in higher risk job choices when they began their career. The value of their earning portfolio increased at a much greater rate because they took greater risk.
Don't fool yourself, the ground is littered with would-be executives who took the risk and failed. For every high paid exec there are hundreds (or thousands) of exec wannabes.
Posted by HighC on February 21, 2011 at 1:59 pm | permalink |
Hmmm… does the presence of failed executive wannabes justify the high price paid to executives who do win a cushy spot?
What are those executives providing in value to their companies today? Shouldn't THAT be the criterion?
Posted by csts on February 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm | permalink |
>does the presence of failed executive wannabes justify the high price paid to executives who do win a cushy spot?
No. It shows that many who take risks don't reap huge rewards.
>What are those executives providing in value to their companies today? Shouldn't THAT be the criterion?
That is the point. That is the criterion. Perform or get out. The better you perform and the more value you bring to the organization the more you get paid, etc.
Posted by HighC on February 21, 2011 at 4:14 pm | permalink |
In general I agree but be careful with taking your argument to it's logical conclusion – there are also many people in lower paid jobs who did not have the education, family structure or connections to get a chance at the higher paid jobs but who otherwise would be perfectly capable with training and experience. I would argue that the pay gap is *far* too wide.
Posted by davednh on February 22, 2011 at 6:08 am | permalink |
High C,
It's not the job market that demands that CEO"s get paid 1000's more than their workers (see other countries for their pay, see earlier decades, etc.). It is compensation boards, using other CEO's pay as baselines, stocked with other CEO's who don't want to see their pay decreased, who are responsible for the exorbinant increase in CEO salaries.
And do you have studies that show these 1000's of failed executives who were broke? I'll start off with an anecdote of Robert Nardelli…ran Home Depot and Chrysler into the ground. Still made hundreds of millions of dollars. Or Mr Countrywide himself…partially responsible for running our economy into the ground, still made out with hundreds of millions.
There is no risk today for the modern CEO…they love Capitalism when the economy is running good, but show a few losses (hello Banking Industry) and they are all running for government support.
Much like, ahem, farmers and acrigultural subsidies. Most are Republicans but they always want to keep the handouts coming!
So HighC, please enter the real world…we are not a capitalistic country…unions are all that's left protecting the middle class from the ones with no risk. If they go, the middle class goes…and we become just another banana republic. And all risk goes on the least able to accept it.
Amazing how compassion has bled out of this so-called "Christian" country. I guess everyone forgot to read the New Testament on their Kindles or IPads…
Posted by Robert on March 4, 2011 at 6:31 pm | permalink |
I don't think the premise of this post is on unions and if they are or are not needed. I think the bigger ticket item on this post is the fact that we need to stop looking for jobs with long term benefits – that's a brilliant statement P! It takes a lot of work to stay employed and keep navigating your career; and I tend to agree that the long term employment era is coming to an end. People in the private sector are not staying with companies for 30+ years anymore. Companies shift too fast and too often mainly because of the speed that information is available in my opinion. In the 70's it took a long time for markets to shift…now, it doesn't take long at all and we all have better avenues to make decisions now. I remember when I first started my career companies had one and five year plans…I don't see five year plans anymore – that has to be a clue that shits happen fast and often.
Posted by Matt Bingham on February 21, 2011 at 9:55 am | permalink |
You utterly neglect to mention that this fight is primarily about future campaign donation potential, and not about $137 million (which is, ultimately a drop in the bucket, even for a state like Wisconsin).
If these unions are broken, that will effectively end their ability to donate to political causes. Frankly, I'd prefer publicly-funded elections (with both union money and corporate money out of the equation altogether), but given that following the Citizens United decision 7 of 10 of the top donors to political campaigns were corporations and wealthy PACs, then I think the unions might just be the only major donors out there who are not giving money to Republican causes. Only 3 of the top 10 donors in 2010 were unions, and if the unions go bye-bye, then so too does any semblance of balance in political spending. Until we have serious campaign finance reform, I don't see this changing.
The bottom line is that if you see this as purely about the union's ability to collectively bargain, you're dead wrong.
Posted by Nate on February 21, 2011 at 9:58 am | permalink |
This is about Democrats and Republicans. End of story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/41655758
The unions were, until 2008 (#1, #2, #3), the largest political fundraisers and contributors to political campaigns. Now, it is Karl Rove and the top conservative PACs (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #10). Once the unions are broken then there will essentially be no fund-raising parity. It will all be right wing.
The Wisconsin governor is breaking up the unions as a broader conservative power play.
My sister kept sending your messages Penelope but I can not fathom my being at all interested in your views anymore. Think bigger!
Posted by Chris Gonzalves on February 21, 2011 at 9:59 am | permalink |
Well said Chris!!!!!
Posted by Vicky on February 21, 2011 at 11:19 pm | permalink |
Much of the problem here is that we want teachers to all be heroes (they aren't) and we want Tea Party governors to all be villains (they are, but not all the time). It's more complicated than a morality play, but no one wants to listen.
Posted by Michael Fontaine on February 21, 2011 at 9:59 am | permalink |
Unions are the voice of the middle class in the political process. Politics is a dirty nasty business where money yields power. So while I may not be 100% in favor of everything ever done by a union, I certainly am not willing to negate their importance in the political landscape.
It is horribly flip to recommend people just find other jobs. When public teachers all leave for different jobs, what does public education look like? It is gone and people will be required to pay for education which means the wealthy will get a great education and the poor….well it's their fault they are in that predicament anyway, right?
Also, this "bill" allows the current administration to gut Medicaid without any discussion. That means that health benefits for the poor, disable, and elderly can disappear in the blink of an eye.
This is such a poorly thought thru post that will get you hits as it is "hot", but it is has no value or substance. Way to sell your soul yet again.
Posted by Lisa on February 21, 2011 at 10:06 am | permalink |
God forbid the government gt out of education. Then there would be competition, which unions and government despise. Good teahers could excel while others get fired. Just like almost all other jobs.
Posted by Burritos-in-union-speedos on February 21, 2011 at 11:02 am | permalink |
Any "thin on depth of understanding of the issues" arguments are complete fair here (as many of P's posts in recent months have shown) but there is an important point here that shouldn't be ignored – specifically that there is no way to pay for some of the entitlements that have been committed to by governments as a result of historic contracts.
While some may see this issue as being about union busting, I agree with the position that it is impossible to cut the state budget, shift responsibilities to the local municipalities but not give them the capabilities to adjust the size of their local governments. If union contracts are trying to protect jobs (understandable) that we can no longer afford then the only other choice is to leave the "size" of government basically alone but cut into the benefits of all.
Whether at the federal, state or local level, we are collectively "facing the music" for decades of overspending and failure to reduce the size of government to force innovation in cost reductions. We are going to be here for a decade or more and eventually be faced with the diminishing stature of our nation's economy on the world stage. We must seriously dig into the cost of healthcare and the "entitlement society" or we will not make it.
With this in mind, I think the advice here to "get over it" is sound. So is the advice to figure out how to better market yourself.
On a personal note, I left the teaching profession in 1985 because I saw how unions protected jobs and raised salaries of undeserving teachers while the dedicated hard-working teachers were not able to be rewarded because of guaranteed wage scales. What's the effect? Some of the best teachers I know left the profession to move into private industry where they could be rewarded for their effort instead of being "protected". I've been in teacher's strikes and I've been in private industry and while they are well intentioned, I don't think union leadership "gets it" that the world is changed and they have to change or perish. If they had been adjusting and making tough decisions over time, they would not be under attack today. (I expect to be flamed for my soapbox so apologies in advance to any I've offended)
Posted by davednh on February 21, 2011 at 10:13 am | permalink |
OOOF – I think you've just written what most people don't want to hear.
You've written a lot of things I've disagreed with, but I keep coming back. As a thoughtful person, I try to consider opinions differing than mine.
I'm a new teacher who has been trying to get tenured over the last three years and am looking at getting cut for the second time. I love teaching. I love my students, but my heart breaks every time I get cut. I was just thinking – "Penelope Trunk would tell me it's time to find a new career."
It's tough to face, but the writing is on the wall.
Posted by b on February 21, 2011 at 10:21 am | permalink |
This happened to me (and most non-tenured teachers) every year until I got tenure. But, I saw this as a problem with the union forcing the school board to take this step because if they didn't and then got stuck needed to reduce forces later, they couldn't do it because of union protection. If there was not the union "protection" of this issue, I would have never been pink-slipped (assuming your's is the same color…b-)
If you love teaching, I hope you stay with it. The students you impact do matter. I miss teaching still 25 years later – good luck. I hope this works out for you.
Posted by davednh on February 21, 2011 at 10:43 am | permalink |
I'm still browsing the edsites. I won't close the door completely. Thanks for the advice!
Posted by b on February 21, 2011 at 11:52 am | permalink |
I've read this article a few times and I am torn. First off, I'm a bit jaded on behalf of each side. My grandfather started and ran one of the largest unions for state workers in Wisconsin in the 50's thru the 70's from what was formerly a depression resolving program called the CCC. His life was union. Mine was not.
First, I'll start with your views on career change. You make is seem like it's as easy as deciding what's for lunch. Want something different for lunch the next day? Sure, pick something different. I was in structured finance and the Great Recession destroyed it. Problem being, I was good at what I did. I became a specialist. Specialists get paid, generalists don't. Problem with being a specialist, is that when your area gets vaporized, so do you. If you need to earn a living, I would challenge you to see just how far "plenty of jobs are out there" gets you.
This is a buyers market for employers. It used to be that if they saw raw talent, they would invest in you and mold you into what they want to be. Now they can wait until that person that checks off 11 of their 10 required boxes for immediate hire are found. Try selecting that off your job of the day lunch menu career selection.
I was told by more than one employer, even though I had 15 years experience in institutional finance, running trading desks, structured asset class, team management… "you've been laid off for 3 months (or 7 months, or a year) and things are different now. You're too out of practice to be hired". I used quote marks because I WAS TOLD THIS.
*By the way, if I saw an employee looking for a new job three days after being hired, I would pay them two months salary and fire them on the spot*
That being said, I started my own business because I knew that structured finance was dead… or at least dead to me.
On to WI and unions. Walker is following a script. If it was about just the budget, he would do what all prudent management does. The would come to the table and negotiate. The state unions in WI gave up numerous days of unpaid furlough when they were approached in the last couple of years. Unions have stated that they would accept the monetary cuts Walker said was necessary. Walker's moves are out of a nationalized play book that is being distributed in NJ, OH and many other states. You see the same talking points. You hear the same language. It's not about the money here. If it was, he'd raise a $1B by raising taxes AND renegotiating contracts. He is not doing either.
You seem to be successful and you are a good writer. So I challenge you to do this. Forget about your six figure book deal. Pretend writing is dead and is no longer available to you as a career. The world needs plenty of good teachers, so start there.
Just don't join the union.
Posted by Jason on February 21, 2011 at 10:21 am | permalink |
I agree with you entirely, and you've said it with a grace and an elegance I cannot muster.
This is one of the most disheartening and heartless blogs I've read. I have found many of Penelope's blogs refreshing, humorous, unusually candid (e.g., her child abuse), some tasteless, but this blog is so far from even the shadow of the truth, I an unsub-ing.
I taught school for over 35 years in public and private schools, public and private universities and believe me, being unionized offered at least a small measure of protection that private schools and universities would never in a million years give.
Penelope, I thought better of you.
Ed Kelly
Posted by Ed Kelly on February 21, 2011 at 3:07 pm | permalink |
Ed, I have an earnest question for you. I am a liberal and I try to support unions, but like other commenters, I regard unions as a necessary protection for manual laborers, not an educated work class.
So when I see my own children's teachers going on strike, primarily focused on these issues:
1) fewer classroom hours and days with the children – more 'in service' days with no children
2) no pay for performance. no possibility of being fired for poor performance.
3) refusal to pay any health insurance premium (like the rest of us do)
4) demanding pay increases when the rest of us are taking cuts
It makes it hard for me to side with them. I have the same four year college degree, and I have never ever had a job with the protections teachers have. I can't even imagine going in to my boss and demanding LESS time doing my job for MORE pay. I'd be looking for a new job by that afternoon.
I feel like the union thing is so ingrained in teacher culture that it creates an artificial us vs. them culture that is not focused on excellence, but rather is focused on protecting the teachers, not the students.
My kids have had some excellent teachers, and a couple of really, really bad ones. It absolutely kills me that the excellent teachers and the really, really bad ones have exactly the same career outlook in our district.
I am interested to hear your thoughts. Really.
By the way, I know this is not the exact issue in Wisconsin.
Posted by rb on February 22, 2011 at 1:27 pm | permalink |
Awesome comment. Thank you.
M
Posted by NetWriterM on February 21, 2011 at 6:01 pm | permalink |
Thank you Jason!!!
I too was unemployed (10 1/2 months) and no matter what I chose to pursue I was being ignored. The last few times I was unemployed, I could pick and choose my place of employment, all within days. Now, there wasn't anything to take. I finally found something, but many, many other friends have not. These are all hardworking people with mortgages to pay. Should they all uproot their families, leave their loved ones and become vagabonds across the US? I don't know P, most people do not make 150K per year.
Posted by Vicky on February 21, 2011 at 11:31 pm | permalink |
Penelope – I enjoy reading your blog and I typically don't agree with your opinions, but this time, I 100% agree. Thanks for having some balls to put it out there.
Posted by Jen B on February 21, 2011 at 10:25 am | permalink |
Wow.
That may be the single most idiotic thing I have read about this bill.
I have never been a fan of your inarticulate, self-aggrandizing ramblings, but this piece is so wrong-headed, ignorant and arrogant, that my jaw is on the floor.
Posted by patrick winters on February 21, 2011 at 10:33 am | permalink |
Agreed. *clicks unsubscribe*
Posted by anne on February 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm | permalink |
Great article P. Amazing what unions did for us in the past, but they have absolutely outworn their welcome.
Government unions' ability to collectively bargain is a complete scham because no one is there to represent the people. It is the union heads looking to get rich and the politicians looking to get elected. No representation of the people paying the taxes that pay thei benefits of the unions.
Posted by Burritos-in-union-speedos on February 21, 2011 at 10:33 am | permalink |
Mayor Bloomberg's first name is Michael.
Posted by Peter on February 21, 2011 at 10:34 am | permalink |
I say bravo…at the end of the day, we must rely upon ourselves and we must be willing to adapt to change, which is inevitable.
I don't see this as political, I see it as common sense.
I also don't read your blog expecting to agree with everything you write. A different perspective allows me to consider alternatives and solutions. It's also what this country is all about.
Posted by beth on February 21, 2011 at 10:35 am | permalink |
Agree complete! It's only logical that in the future we will all be single person "companies", probably organized as LLCs and working on multiple projects and for multiple companies virtually – depending on where/when our unique skills are needed.
The people who figure this out earliest will be the big winners.
Posted by davednh on February 21, 2011 at 10:47 am | permalink |
My concern is if the great teachers "recognize the writing on the wall" and change careers, what happens then? I live in Texas and am lucky to have fantastic public schools for my children. We have great schools but are also going through a budget crisis and each year endure more cuts. I'd hate to see our strong teachers up and leave b/c they are afraid they will be cut during the next round of budget cuts. I don't know what the answer is.
In general, I'm not a huge supporter of unions. I am a believer in taking personal responsibility for your actions, your career, your choices, your lot in life, etc. Why should unions get special protections the rest of us don't?
Kristy
Posted by Kristy on February 21, 2011 at 10:35 am | permalink |
Great journalist are leaving newspapers because there are no jobs left. Great doctors are quitting medicine because they're sick of the paperwork. It happens all the time that industries switch, people leave and new people, who like the new order, join.
If we have a shortage of teachers, then the pay will go up. The red tape will go down. Maybe if we have a shortage of teachers we'll have an expansion of Teach for America. Maybe if we have a shortage of teachers we'll have to do something totally different. How bad can that be? The way things are now in public schools, almost everything needs vast improvement.
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on February 21, 2011 at 1:03 pm | permalink |
That's what I'm waiting for. I'd love to teach, but the system doesn't work and I don't want to deal with it. So I'm either going to try and fix it form the outside, or pay attention and then contribute when the system works.
Posted by Meg Flynn on February 21, 2011 at 3:34 pm | permalink |
Teach For America has a horrible track record, just FYI. Although to the founder's credit, she is trying to make it better and is very open and honest about it.
Posted by Rebecca on February 21, 2011 at 5:04 pm | permalink |
You think there are enough teachers? I know kindergarten classes of 60 with 1 teacher.
That is not good.
You need to do more research on this entire topic.
M
Posted by NetWriterM on February 21, 2011 at 6:02 pm | permalink |
Please tell me a time when union busting was a good thing.
It only benefits the rich.
And believe me, there's a shortage of teachers now, but no one is hiring the ones who are unemployed. My daughter was in a class of 20 4th graders and 20 5th graders all with one teacher. All to save a buck. No one could care less about what was good for the students. Except the parents, but oh with a good chunk of them unemployed, they were too busy looking for jobs to complain. And don't talk to me about crappy homeschooling. That crap doesn't pay the bills.
Posted by Vicky on February 21, 2011 at 11:42 pm | permalink |
We have had a shortage of teachers for a long time. I taught in NJ and after 6 years experience and tenure I was making $22K/yr. Most teacher shortages stem from historically poor pay. So here we are 25 yrs later and while pay has gone up but I have seen nothing to indicate that red tape, education efficiencies, or teaching effectiveness has (or will) improved. Why? Because the unions want to resist any fundamental changes or allow fundamental new educational alternatives (real competition). I am a fan of Public Education but I also see it as held hostage to the Union that was originally there to improve pay/conditions/training but who now are trying too long to maintain the status quo.
Also, as aside: to anyone who wants to get up on the "teachers have two months off" soapbox – shut up and go try teaching before you open your mouth. Any good teacher I ever knew was working through that so-called vacation on behalf of their students, summer programs, coaching, activities, or self-improvement.
Posted by davednh on February 22, 2011 at 6:18 am | permalink |
I'm sorry but we do not live a pure Adam Smith economy.
If there is a shortage of teachers, we consolidate classes and raise the number of students per classroom. Why? Because the interested consumer doesn't make the choices. In a typical city, those most interested in the education of their children opt for private education. Many teachers choose lower pay and benefits to work for these schools because of discounts afforded to their children or choose to be in an environment that expresses their religious beliefs, or like working in an environment where the administration will summarily dismiss a child from the school (unless the child of a better connected partent). The private school increases capacity if it makes financial sense and fits the vision of the organization.
Over on the public side, if there is a job boom in the region and the population increases, the school has no choice but accomodate each student that lives within its service area that doesn't opt for private school or home school. For the most part that increase in demand is not addressed with increased revenue. While some government aid will increase most funding comes from property taxes that often do no rise immediately or in an economy such as the current, fall because property values are lower and landowners challenge assessments.
If there are more teaching spots than applicants, schools have little ability to raise salaries to attract applicants. The school has no new income source to pay the increased salary.
The public has to approve much of the funding of public schools. Those without children or school-age children have little incentive to raise their taxes to fund the system. Those with school age children in private school or home school have no incentive to vote to raise their taxes.
The funding model is not equipped to handle the situation of meeting rising needs and certainly is not equipped to address shortages of teachers in key fields nor to meet increasing technology needs.
Posted by Mark F on February 22, 2011 at 11:32 am | permalink |
Penelope has a good point there in that, when industries become saturated with prospective employees, they adapt, and, in the end, it often results in higher pay and higher-quality employees. Overall, it results in improvement.
Perhaps the "improvement" we'll see in education is smaller class sizes but less-powerful unions and slightly lower pay for teachers. Would this be good or bad? I really can't say, and I don't think that many people here can.
In the end, public education is a public good. Good public schools don't directly create wealth. That's why the people with power in this country don't value them, and that's what Walker's attacks are about. If the people in power in this country cared about the public good, there are a whole lot of other ways that they could better take care of it. The dangerous thing about the original post is its reactionary, defeatist tone, and its implication that victims should not attempt to change the systems that damage them, but merely "adapt to a changing world."
Posted by Ben on March 5, 2011 at 5:16 pm | permalink |
Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows: South Carolina -50th, North Carolina -49th, Georgia -48th, Texas -47th, Virginia -44th (By the way, Wisconsin is #2.) Scary-interesting!
Posted by Amy Nicholson on February 21, 2011 at 10:35 am | permalink |
I strongly disagree with Penelope's post, but the information you just posted is not accurate. Here is a good article explaining the situation:
http://studentactivism.net/2011/02/20/sat-act-unions/
Posted by Pen on February 21, 2011 at 12:10 pm | permalink |
Great article clarifying some misinformation – thanks for posting.
Posted by davednh on February 21, 2011 at 1:00 pm | permalink |
Thank you VERY much for posting corrected numbers and thoughtful analysis!
Posted by csts on February 21, 2011 at 2:00 pm | permalink |
I agree completely, Penelope. I love your blog . . . the voice of reason! People are afraid and their reaction is to protest against change. Job security is a myth as is security of any kind; there are no guarantees in life. The people who except this adapt and overcome difficulties. The people who don't get left behind. It's a choice.
And if I hear one more time about executives getting paid too much . . . I left a finance job back in August (yes, I quit my job in this economy) after receiving a promotion a few months before. One of the reasons I left was that with getting paid more comes a boatload of more work, more worries and more accountability. I don't disagree at all with that formula; more money should equal all those things. It just wasn't how I wanted to live my life. I wasn't that high up but I worked with a lot of higher ups and one of the reasons they get paid so much is that they shoulder huge amounts of responsibility. If they don't produce or if something goes wrong on their watch they take the heat, not the lower workers.
Posted by Elizabeth M. on February 21, 2011 at 10:36 am | permalink |
You clearly come from a place of someone who starts up companies. So there is no surprise here. But, I suspect you are taking an opportunity to get hits on your blog on the back of this fight, which is in keeping with your spirit of self promotion. Gotta keep'em reading, right? Good thing here is that most folks have already formed their opinions on this and won't make decisions based on this post.And what a GREAT topic (unions) to jack folks up – runs neck and neck with the abortion posts.
Posted by wendy on February 21, 2011 at 10:37 am | permalink |
Exactly. It's all about traffic, even at the expense of spreading misinformation and lost integrity. No wonder Penelope is unhappy.
Posted by Julie on February 21, 2011 at 2:26 pm | permalink |
I think she does believe the half-truths she writes are brilliant.
At least she is not writing about Egypt.
Posted by Jennifer on February 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm | permalink |
Penelope this fantastic. A harsh reality but an accurate one. I worked as a traditional therapist until about a year ago when I realized I was working with a disatrous (insurance based) business model that was doing little more than overworking me for insurance company handouts while I launched face first into impending burnout.
So I reinvented my service offerings, I now work from home and work with clients nationwide over the Phone and Skype. IT CAN BE DONE.
Posted by Brian King on February 21, 2011 at 10:43 am | permalink |
does anyone else find it slightly hilarious that the traditionally conservative republicans are the ones advocating change, while the 'progressives', are against measures that would encourage workforce change? (entrepreneurship). Maybe its just language and labels that are laughable.
Posted by ream on February 21, 2011 at 5:58 pm | permalink |
@ Rem: Conservatives want a backwards change. Progressives want (duh!) a forward change.
It's that easy
Posted by Jennifer on February 21, 2011 at 8:10 pm | permalink |
It's not surprising when you see who gets funded by which groups. Unfortunately, the "we need to spend more" solution will no longer work – welcome to the breaking point.
Posted by davednh on February 22, 2011 at 6:24 am | permalink |
Whew. I worked in a union environment for fifteen years. I experienced first hand how discouraging it is to work side by side with people who basically are on the public dole as employees. There is little accountability in the union environments that I have been exposed to. The performance of the lowest common denominator is the bar. Some union worker invariably slows the pace with their chronic complaints that somehow work as a great deflection from their sorry performance. Then most of the others jump on board and work isn't getting done. My belief is that unions may be okay, but only if some real performance measurements are put in place. There should be some expectation of performance for the pensions, paid holidays, and automatic raises etc.
Posted by Chris on February 21, 2011 at 10:50 am | permalink |
Completely agree – this is the fundamental issue that drove me out of teaching in 1985. It wasn't the low pay but instead it was the fact that I saw teachers who left early, didn't care but got paid more because they had been there longer. I couldn't turn into that kind of teacher so I left the profession. If the union had been more aggressive a couple of decades ago about getting rid of bad teachers and finding a way to embrace performance-based pay more teachers (like me and many others) would still be there and it would not be necessary to keep pushing the pay scale up in order to attract teachers to fill the shortages.
Posted by davednh on February 22, 2011 at 6:30 am | permalink |
I can't comment on the situation in Wisconsin and fully agree that careers and expectations must change, but unions are not just unions of public workers or industrial workers. Their sole purpose is not to protect individual jobs and benefits over the long-term. They can provide vital support beyond collective bargaining – for things such as re-training and protection for individuals within specific career paths when faced with industry change, unjust dismissals, prosecutions that could set a precedent for employees in that industry (journalism for instance), etc. I see unions very much having a value in the future, but they do need reform (at least where I live).
Posted by fdx on February 21, 2011 at 10:51 am | permalink |
P.
You really just don't understand. These people have FAMILIES! They have health care, which if the Mayor dissolves the union, the government and schools would stop paying for! People would DIE… My husband is a government worker and without the unions to stabilize the shaky ground that our county was on, he would have lost his job and health care, and because I have AML (leukemia) I would have DIED! Because even if he found another job, NO health care system would cover a pre-existing condition… that means NO chemo, NO life saving stem cell bone marrow transplant, NO meds to keep me healthy and stay in remission!
So yeah thanks, I see how you REALLY care about people other than yourself and your inner circle of people… care about someone else besides yourself once and a while. It might make you feel like a human being!
Posted by Jessica on February 21, 2011 at 10:53 am | permalink |
Look, Jessica, nobody cares about you or your problems. Deal with it. Either pull yourself up by your bootstraps, or fall by the wayside. But don't expect the rest of us to pay for it in perpetuity.
Posted by Mike on February 21, 2011 at 6:02 pm | permalink |
Mike:
Someday you will be sick. Really sick. Illness comes for us all.
I hope you are treated exactly the way you seem to treat others.
May your pension be gone when you need it. Your insurance canceled on the cusp of life saving surgery. May your government destroy your livelihood in the name of 'fiscal responsibility'.
M
Posted by NetWriterM on February 21, 2011 at 6:09 pm | permalink |
NetWriterM,
I have high blood pressure and high cholesterol. I have had skin cancer (basil cell carcinoma) and will probably have a reoccurrence. My daughter had autism. My son was a micro preemie, born at 28 weeks gestation. So what's your point? Unlike you, Jessica, and other mealy mouthed liberals, I DEAL WITH IT rather than waste everybody's time with incessant whining and asking everybody for a handout.
Posted by Mike on February 21, 2011 at 10:48 pm | permalink |
Mike you are still benefiting from living in a system. You drive on federal highways, you don't do your own cancer research, you are being paid for as well, whether you realize it or not, and you are actually more like the people you are taking shots at, than you are different from them.
Posted by Mark on February 22, 2011 at 7:01 am | permalink |
Yes Jessica, people would die.
I was unemployed, but could not get health care. My kids could (from the state), but as my father in law said, they don't need it you do!
Posted by Vicky on February 21, 2011 at 11:47 pm | permalink |
There's probably a useful conversation to be had on how unions could/should function in a changing economy with changing priorities, but this post — with you being in Wisconsin no less — is stunningly misinformed and narrow minded.
Posted by Kim on February 21, 2011 at 10:54 am | permalink |
Oh, Penelope. I love you so dearly, but you are so clearly one who has not had the experience of struggle. I believe that at least 3 years of serious hardship should be a pre-requisite for anyone considering a move into a place of power over others. Unfortunately, our Mayor Bloomberg over here does not fit this bill.
Your exclamation that young people are thrilled about this economy and their career opportunities are mis-founded. I'm guessing that you collected your data solely from college graduates from well-to-do families who were given every drop of monetary assistance to take on brutal unpaid internships that their little privileged hearts desired. I'm also guessing that you missed the statistic that there are 4 people for every one job available and that most companies have accustomed themselves to having a smaller workforce semi-permanently.
I happen to bye a young person who isn't excited about this economy and has had to struggle immensely since graduating despite having a stellar resume and work experience. Please cast your net wider (as in, to the margins of society that have gotten bigger and bigger each year) when collecting data.
Posted by Terell on February 21, 2011 at 11:00 am | permalink |
Terell, n = 1, but I'm a young person who is quite excited about even the current supposedly horrible economy. No connections, inherited money, internships of any kind, college degree (!). I worked during college (and then dropped out) making barely above Missouri minimum wage, which was $5.15/hr at the time.
None of that matters of course. The reason I'm successful in my career is that I recognize one invariant of the free market: Employers worth working for will always hire the most useful person. So I've worked hard to become that useful person, and so far done okay.
So perhaps Penelope did collect her data solely from rich, elite, highly-connected college graduates, but had I been thrown into the mix her conclusions wouldn't be any different
BTW, there's no way there are so few jobs. McDonald's and Wal-Mart have been hiring for ages.
Posted by Spencer Tipping on February 21, 2011 at 8:45 pm | permalink |
15 years out of college, 6 job changes later, only one of them by choice… nearly 90 post-BA units and unemployable… I'm not optimistic about anything financial, employment, retirement, or healthwise. I graduated from college a pragmatist, but now I'm a full-on pessimist. I'm about to become a 99er.
Posted by Pamzella on March 1, 2011 at 1:59 am | permalink |
I love it when self-anointed experts get it all wrong.
Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows: South Carolina -50th, North Carolina -49th, Georgia -48th, Texas -47th, Virginia -44th (By the way, Wisconsin is #2.) For the best explanation of what's really behind the motives of this and similar moves to drag down the middle class, read this: http://georgelakoff.com/2011/02/19/what-conservatives-really-want/
Posted by Ron C. on February 21, 2011 at 11:02 am | permalink |
I strongly disagree with Penolope's post, but I don't believe your information is accurate. Here is an explanation of how that data is badly skewed:
http://studentactivism.net/2011/02/20/sat-act-unions/
Posted by Pen on February 21, 2011 at 12:15 pm | permalink |
Off topic, I know. But I love data…
Wisconsin ranks number 2 for SAT scores? I cannot find this data anywhere. Can you please share?
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on February 21, 2011 at 12:37 pm | permalink |
Penelope,
I'm really sorry about the typo in your name in my comment just above. I saw it at the last second and then couldn't stop the post from going through.
If you are interested to know more about the numbers and how they were arrived at, there is some good data in the link I posted between your post and the prior one. It sheds some light on how the other figures were arrived at and what some better-calculated figures are (even tho' they don't make as good a "sound bite").
Posted by Pen on February 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm | permalink |
Please close this stupid site and shut up forever, you awful, awful link chaser.
The worst part about this incredibly stupid piece is this: looking at you, I know you're middle class. If you are middle class, somewhere in your family's past, there was a Union member. Your family would never have stopped being middle class if not for the unions. Maybe he worked a factory. Maybe he worked the Government. Maybe your mom was a seamstress. I don't know…
but there was a Union member in there. And his union brothers and sisters won him enough money that maybe his kid went to a trade school, and that kid's kid went to college and now you've gone to college and maybe it's enough generations back that your family has forgotten the memory of it.
But that's how it worked here.
I used to live in Madison. It wouldn't be the cushy little feelgood place it is if people hadn't fought so hard to quit being screwed out of real wages.
Unions did that.
See how more and more people are getting screwed all over this country?
And unions are gone.
Correlated? Probably. Maybe even causal. Get a clue. Shut up. Stay home. Quit talking. You're awful.
Posted by BradyDale on February 21, 2011 at 11:03 am | permalink |
Finally a voice of reason. I have worked in public schools, in print media, and in the private sector for a non-union shop. The work of our trades was sabotaged by union employees frequently and intimidation and threats of violence not uncommon.
Your comments are spot on. It's always struck me as curious that one chooses a profession, knowing the hours and pay, and then protests vehemently when that's exactly what they get.
It's akin to the couple in my state who bought a house within spitting distance of a pig farm and then tried to have the pig farm shut down because it smells.
Thanks for having the guts to post them.
Posted by Debbie Botham on February 21, 2011 at 11:04 am | permalink |
"It's always struck me as curious that one chooses a profession, knowing the hours and pay, and then protests vehemently when that's exactly what they get."
Well said, Debbie.
After working briefly for a (non-govt) union where extra effort was ignored and seniority was the trump card for opportunities and pay, I chose my profession specifically so that my skills could adapt to the changing employment landscape.
While I believe that some unions are effective at providing protection for their employees, I also believe that the entitled, corporation-like entities described in many of the comments above are the norm. A good, performance-based regime seems to be the only way to produce the results and work environment that are advantageous (for both the public consumers and the other company employees).
Posted by Aurian on February 21, 2011 at 6:38 pm | permalink |
It's interesting to me how mean, dumb and nasty the comments in favor of unions are. I found the same thing when I wrote about unions.
Posted by Cathy Reisenwitz on February 21, 2011 at 11:06 am | permalink |
That seems like kind of a broad brush, Cathy. I can see some less-than-wonderful posts coming from both sides. And also some well-reasoned, thoughtful ones.
Posted by Pen on February 21, 2011 at 2:55 pm | permalink |
Your ideas are perfect for the privileged class.
Posted by Kimberly Gisler on February 21, 2011 at 11:10 am | permalink |
Yes Kimberly they are!!
Posted by Vicky on February 21, 2011 at 11:51 pm | permalink |
Bravo for this Penelope. As a business owner that pays 100% of my benefits, 100% of my 401K, and gets fired if I under-perform I can barely comprehend a world where this isn't the norm.
Things are changing, unions aren't needed, couldn't have said it better.
Also, kudos to Ian's and their ingenuity!
Posted by Caitlin McCabe on February 21, 2011 at 11:10 am | permalink |
No surprise that as a boss you don't think Unions are needed.
People are still getting screwed, all the time. Union workers don't get screwed, because they don't have unions.
People with skills are somewhat less likely to get screwed, because they are hard to replace, but if there were no labor movement in this country you can be sure they would be screwed.
Anyone who thinks the screwing of workers is over, is a fool.
Anyone who thinks it wouldn't get vastly worse, again, if Labor completely disappeared, is a fool.
Anyone who thinks that they don't benefit from unions, even if they aren't in one, is a fool.
Every worker should be in a Union. If they have a good boss, the Union won't have to do much, but someday managment will change and then they will
And anyone who thinks that workers are kept to the deal they strike with the boss when they are hired (especially without the threat of collective action), is a big, big fool.
Posted by BradyDale on February 22, 2011 at 3:07 pm | permalink |
Think things through a little here, Penelope. It seems to me that the events in Madison and your governor and his supports prove res ipsa loquitur that unions are necessary. That comment is glib and short-sighted. It seems to me that someone offering advice on "work and life" would understand that.
But on a different level — I apologize now, I don't know you — I find this post offensive. I am not a union memember and I am not a public worker, however it upsets me that public workers get so little respect in our country today. Photos of tea party counter-protesters in Madison are frequently offensive and vile…and you have elected leaders thanking them for the support they bring. Come on! What is wrong with a career in public service? What kind of skill and talent do we think will be drawn to public jobs when so-called leaders are vilifying people in those jobs today?
I suggest a LITTLE more thought and study about unions and labor markets before blithefully advice people to dump unions and become entrepreneurs…or whatever it is you suggest. Unions are not about fighting child labor today…well, sometimes they are (do you know who picked your lettuce?)…but they are about fighting injustice and ignorance, and it appears that we still have a fair amount of that in our country.
Posted by Shane on February 21, 2011 at 11:12 am | permalink |
All of you pro-union commenters above, keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Remember Jim Jones? Your brainwashing is scary. Unions are no longer needed. This is 100% simple fact. There is no need for them anymore other than keeping the poorest performing members employed. End of story.
Posted by James Fowlkes on February 21, 2011 at 11:12 am | permalink |
amen.
Posted by justamouse on February 21, 2011 at 11:42 am | permalink |
Great topic to bring on conversation and debate. As a Wisconsinite, I'll agree this is the only thing on our mind these days.
No matter what your viewpoint is, I do want to share this…I spent a day last week at the capitol and I don't think I've ever felt so proud to be an American as that day. The democratic system we have is truly a blessed thing. That we should all be able to assemble and voice our opinion, no matter what it is, is such a gift.
I also was SO proud of us as human beings. These are massive crowds of people – tens of thousands of people. Everyone has been so nice to each other, so peaceful even when Walker supporters showed up. When I was there the square was amazingly clean in spite of the crowds. People's attitudes were also clean – I saw one, only one, inappropriate sign that showed a middle finger with Walker's face over it. I saw no vulgarity. There were so many children there with their parents – it was truly a family affair.
That said, I also have an opinion on the unions.
I agree the workforce is changing. The number of union members is actually declining, not because of lack of support but because there just aren't as many people working the skilled trades.
However, there is a great demand for such labor. Tool & die, machinists, welders, etc – these are all jobs we still require but not enough young people are filling the need as baby boomers retire. Here's a Michigan business that, in spite of the state's extremely poor economy, can't find needed employees: http://bit.ly/dSViUE. I've seen similar ads in Wisconsin as well.
Secondly, things go in ebbs and flows. True, unions may not be needed in the same way now. And we may even dissolve them. But there will always be the ideal of profit over people and working conditions, no matter what the job, will once again become unfair. Someday a joining together to object will again have to occur.
Posted by sophie on February 21, 2011 at 11:14 am | permalink |
The author apparently hasn't noticed that a bill has been introduced in the Missouri state legislature to eliminate child labor laws.
Posted by JoyfulA on February 21, 2011 at 11:16 am | permalink |
When employees at a private company unionize, they run the risk that they will ask for too much and kill their own golden goose. Regardless of what they want, they won't get ANYTHING if the company they work for goes out of business. The laws of supply and demand are still allowed to work.
When government employees unionize, what kind of ceiling is there when they ask for too much? The state either goes into debt, makes cuts elsewhere in the budget, or gives the taxpayers the shaft. This is precisely what everyone is sick of, and why they elected these people in Wisconsin.
I don't believe government workers should even be allowed to unionize, and my only gripe with the bill is that it only targets teachers and doesn't go after ALL government employees. The protesters make me sick. What a bunch of entitlement-minded, self-important deadbeats, who have such a weak case to stand on, they have to bus in 70,000 other deadbeats from outside their state to help them out.
Posted by Pirate Jo on February 21, 2011 at 11:34 am | permalink |
I just went from loving you, to flat out adoring you.
I cannot stand unions and I think they need to go the way of the dinosaur, as they also are. They are crippling those of us on the other side of the fence who are middle class and paying them, while we go without ourselves so they can have.
Posted by justamouse on February 21, 2011 at 11:38 am | permalink |
Great post and comments.
Where is the lifetime member subscriber button?
Posted by Mark W. on February 21, 2011 at 11:42 am | permalink |
How glib of you to liken teachers and health care workers to a pizza joint. And ironic that both of your children, with their premature birth(s) and special learning needs, benefit from the extra measure these very employees give. These are not fields in which employees can expect a year end bonus or compensation if the company does well: very unlike your lifestyle as you try to figure out the next scam to continue your six figure income that you are always bragging about.
Think about the public services you use (and use and use) and think about if these employees deserve the protection a union offers.
And don't embarrass yourself by likening their work to serving pizzas.
Posted by Angela on February 21, 2011 at 11:44 am | permalink |
In other news, racism and sexism have also been solved. Thank god we live in this utopia where we're all treated fairly.
Posted by Jiggs on February 21, 2011 at 11:48 am | permalink |
innovate or disintegrate. migrate or hibernate. don't wait, be great.
nice post.
Posted by Pirate ream on February 21, 2011 at 12:02 pm | permalink |
I'm starting to think that, unknown to me, 'adjectives' have somehow become so valuable that people, especially those on the Left, have begun hoarding them.
I mean, what else explains their constant use of the general term 'collective bargaining', when what they mean is "public sector collective bargaining". Those two necessary adjectives make all the difference in the discussion.
For a Union is not appropriate in all times and places. We all know that, don't we? Private sector? Absolutely. Go for it. But how about in the Military? Should we have Officers versus unionized soldiers? I don't think so. How about the Public sector? Well, perhaps somewhere in between those two extremes….
THAT is the debate. How MUCH of a Union is appropriate for the Public Sector. None? Just wages? Everything? It is a legitimate debate. It is NOT a slam dunk for one side, like both sides probably think. A Union does not = a Union, no matter WHERE it is. It MATTERS where it is.
So when you say "collective bargaining", you need to use adjectives to indicate WHERE the collective bargaining is being asked for. Private sector collective bargaining, military services collective bargaining, public sector collective bargaining — all similar, but crucially different things.
One can't just say "I'm for collective bargaining". It is too general a term.
As Socrates said, "If you would discourse with me, first define your terms." Good advice then, even more so, now.
Posted by John Auston on February 21, 2011 at 12:05 pm | permalink |
First, I could not agree with this post more. This post has renewed my interest in your blog.
Second, cutting the unions down to size by a little bit does not mean there will be no large organizations to donate political money to Democratic candidates.
This is 2011. If your causes speak to people then you can always get them to donate money. (Honestly they might have more to donate if they did not have to also pay their union bosses through dues.)
Posted by Russ on February 21, 2011 at 12:17 pm | permalink |
Nothing like starting a fire with a bunch of garbage- don't you know that such a fire just smokes and never finishes. So— in agreement with others who said this is far too complicated for cute quips and catchy phrases but then that is why much of the public believes as you do that unions don't need to exist. What they forget is that unions gave you most of your rights as an employee like- 8 hour days, overtime, minimum wage, no child labor, worker's compensation, weekends, workplace safety and more. If you think you couldn't lose that just look at the last congressional debate to not raise the minimum wage.
To work backwards â about change and learning. I was on a school board for over a dozen years. We made it our district's mission to make sure students knew that they needed lifelong learning any way they could get it. We wanted our students to be employable at any job where there was training because we agreed that jobs would change 4-7 times in a lifetime. However your Republican business buddies decided that students should be taught to take tests â not learn anything or be open to learning past the test. Teachers are required to teach the district and state curriculum- but get their students to pass the test. And btw- guess who approves these state curriculums âelected and appointed board members â that in Florida couldn't pass the test themselves.
About firing employeesâyou are right employees that are not competent need to move on. As a school board member we did that. However what we found was the root cause was principals and supervisors who hired people who were not competent in the first place and who then did not do correct reviews and subsequent training to bring those employees up to par. We had some sups that had no idea how to do a decent review.
This doesn't just happen in schools â on the other side of the table I was a union rep. for state employees. After sitting down with the new Warden for a state prison on a monthly basis- the topic of an employee who was seen as below standard was raised. As it happened the person worked for a Deputy Warden and I knew the situation. I asked the warden to get copies of the person's reviews by his Deputy. Hmmm- turned out the Deputy had been giving glowing written (as well as verbal) reviews to this person. Other union members were unhappy about this but unable to comment although they were required often to do this person's work over again. The same prison hired someone who was not suitable over the phone and then tried to fire the person later without trying to rectify their mistake.
Management and elected officials have to start doing what they are paid to do- administer and make decisions that are informed and can be trusted to based on more than the current political whim.
As for bargaining I have been in all of the shoes- elected official (a 30 M budget and 1200 employees), an employee (mid-management which is not allowed to be union) and a union rep. When I was a school board member we had a superintendent, finance person, labor negotiator , and attorney- all of whom lied at the bargaining table â in big ways- claiming were about to go under when we hade over 17% reserve in one district and 15% reserve in another). We found they lied to the board as well- they no longer work there. We changed our bargaining style after that â it took several years. We went from the old industrial model â bargaining is just passing each other's proposals to each other to interest based bargaining- which requires trust. It means that money is on the table- what exists and what doesn't exist. It means that working conditions are talked about â not ignored. It means there can be honest disagreement about what to spend the money on but it also means that if there isn't money there isn't money. It also means both sides treat each other as people not a cog in the wheel. It makes working a whole lot better. With respect to benefits- we were paying an arm and a leg being part of a county system â the union did research which administrators looked at. In the end we changed- went to a bigger pool and reduced current and future rates (something Wisconsin could easily choose to do).
This is what happens when people are thoughtful and don't do arbitrary cuts. We looked at positions that could stay unfilled and/or needed to be redefined because of how learning was changing. We did it together. Hasn't any one of you who are anti-union wished that for once in your working career you were told- heck involved in- why a major change occurred? W had a strategic plan that involved over 1,000 people in a district with 6,000 students. We wanted people invested- students, parents, teachers, and admin. , business, vendors etc. â and they were/are. That plan said students came first but we were partners in acting on that. And if students come first don't teachers provide the basis for that.
About unions- they are not going away. Most people that are anti-unions â wished they had union representation. The downward spiral has been the unions' fault- lack of organizing. But that is going away and will continue to do so. SEIU has been showing the way as well as the little old Laborers Union. Look at the rate for janitors and nurses unionizing- credit SEIU. There will be more not less. We can all hope that they work with Democrats to show how real bargaining can occur.
Put those elected officials feet to the fire. No more coming to a board meeting without having read the material. No more making decisions based on putting their finger in the wind. No more arbitrary cuts to budgets without looking at what program and who they are killing. No more giving tax breaks to their buddies.
If we want less welfare â then that needs to include corporate welfare â if businesses can't exist without tax breaks, incentives (like those given for sports stadiums), and special exemptions then maybe they shouldn't exist. For once maybe business should be subject to the free market and the vagaries that provides. Survival of the fittest â let's start with business and those CEOS that make a 1000x what their workers make and then see what happens. If those perks go away let's see who is left. And oh — by the way let's see what happens when capital gains basis has to start being reported â truthfully.
Whether it's Governor Walker or Governor Scott in FL who is trying the same mantra â these fools need to watch their back. The reality is â about teachers- that the majority of parents love their child's teachers- it's the other teachers who must be bad—- and they will remind you next election day.
Posted by mmsilva on February 21, 2011 at 12:29 pm | permalink |
You must not have read my post first. Your long post is missing multiple critically important 'adjectives', as thus simply obfuscates the issue.
E.g., you frequently use the word "union' when you should have written "public sector union". But we're not stupid. We all know WHY you are leaving out those adjectives. When they are in there, they seriously weaken your case, no?
Posted by John Auston on February 21, 2011 at 12:38 pm | permalink |
Sorry John- wasn't responding to you at all- I was writing – not reading your post. I apply all of what I said to all unions not just public employee unions- it is just that they are under fire for now. It will be all unions that are as someone I suspect you admire greatly – Sarah Palin says – will be in the crosshairs of the Republican Tea Party.
Posted by mmsilva on February 21, 2011 at 12:46 pm | permalink |
Sorry John- wasn't responding to you at all- I was writing â not reading your post. I apply all of what I said to all unions not just public employee unions- it is just that they are under fire for now. It will be all unions that are as someone I suspect you admire greatly â Sarah Palin says â will be in the crosshairs of the Republican Tea Party.
Posted by mmsilva on February 21, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
Ah! The slippery slope argument. I wondered when that would be brought up. Didn't take long. Ok, let's talk slippery slope. Bet you are Pro Choice ( I am too, btw – you were wrong about the Palin speculation ), but I bet you don't worry for a second that Pro Choice starts us down the slippery slope of cheapening all life, so that soon all life, just not pre-natal life, will be under assault. Am I right – that you don't worry about that?
Well, don't you worry either that curtailing PUBLIC SECTOR unions will slippery slope into the private sector. Apples and ornages.
But, nice try.
Posted by John Auston on February 21, 2011 at 3:32 pm | permalink |
I had to clarify your comment regarding government jobs are cushy. My Father worked for the FAA, it was NOT a cushy job. He maintained electrical operations in an airport. He climbed towers and worked outside in the Michigan summer humidity and cold winters. In his mid-50s he transferred to Alaska. Working outside in -60 temperatures with polar bears lurking around is far from cushy. But he kept the runway lights operating. And he wasn't overpaid, underpaid. He was also a member of the union, thank goodness.
Posted by lisa on February 21, 2011 at 12:57 pm | permalink |
Normally, I don't comment on here either. But, Penelope is right about her comment at the top. If Democrats can't win elections without the unions, then that is a serious issue within their party and speaks volumes to the candidates as individuals. And, if Wisconsin is the poorest performing school system, then where is the ACCOUNTABILITY for the teachers WITHIN that school system? If most people don't perform well at their jobs, they get let go. They don't get to continue receiving benefits, pay, and rewards for a job poorly done. Put down the signs and get back to work.
Posted by Jen on February 21, 2011 at 12:59 pm | permalink |
Furthermore, if people can raise $50K here in Detroit in just merely SIX days for something as ludacris as an effing RoboCop statue….then the Democratic Party SURELY can find a way to better fund their campaigns.
Posted by Jen on February 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm | permalink |
I usually really like this blog, but this has given me some pause. It's just very shallow advice, and at some points even hurtful. Not to mention that it's poorly researched, poorly informed, and poorly thought out.
Posted by Betsy on February 21, 2011 at 1:11 pm | permalink |
Penelope – I read everything I can regarding careers and job markets…and your blog is my favorite. Even when I don't agree with you, I value and consider your unique insight. I think you right on in this case. Your blog is consistently bold and brilliant!
Posted by Abbe on February 21, 2011 at 1:12 pm | permalink |
This has nothing to do with the right or wrong of unions. This, like the unjust destruction of ACORN, is entirely political. If Republicans can break the public sector labor movement, it will virtually wipe out the labor movement in the United States. For years, the public sector has been the lifeblood of the union movement and is the only big player that the Democrats have in the race for campaign cash.
Moneyed interests have often tried to blame the working class for problems that they, themselves created. Wall Street invested state public employee's pension funds in worthless sub-prime mortgages, the states lost all of that money, now the states have to pay into the pension funds directly precisely because they lost all of that money on bad investments, the states are broke and can't afford the pension fund payments, and now – this is the best part – it is the public employee's fault that the states are broke.
Companies used to use goons with baseball bats to break up unions. Now they fund trojan horses disguised as "The Tea Party" and "Freedom Works" to do their bidding.
Posted by Jeff Curtis on February 21, 2011 at 1:13 pm | permalink |
My goodness, so many things wrong with this post. I'll cherry-pick a few, trying not to repeat what has already been said by other commentators.
1. About those new jobs [which] are emerging because of the change; sadly BLS statistics on job creation are eloquent: the only growth sectors are low-pay service jobs, esp. health care jobs (i.e., think nursing home assistants, not surgeons). On a personal level it is a positive attribute to want to take charge but it can cloud your judgment of collective situations.
2. Unions are anachronistic. This is an interesting point because you got it both right and wrong. Globalisation has radically altered the balance of power in that in many sectors employers no longer have to meet the local workforce halfway: they can simply up and leave, not just the county but the country. In such sectors I am willing to believe unions are now ineffective and therefore anachronistic. However there are still plenty of sectors where, by their very nature, the jobs must be performed locally by local workers and where working conditions are positively victorian: think for instance of gas station staff, janitorial staff (the condition of room cleaning staff at some of the ritziest hotels in the US is a scandal), WalMart clerks etc. In those sectors unions still make eminent sense but bizarrely they are also among those with the lowest unionization rates. So you are right that present-day unions are anachronistic but for the wrong reason. Unions are not an anachronism in and of themselves, rather their anachronism is a consequence of the mismatch of their distribution with present-day workplaces: they are strongest (a legacy of the industrial past) where they are no longer effective while sectors which are crying for unionization are still under-unionized.
3. Another reason why unions are not anachronistic is that the rich disagree. Their own unions are called lobbying bodies, think tanks, chambers of commerce etc and they are firing on all cylinders. Why should the working and middle classes unilaterally disarm? This would be especially detrimental in a country where the blueprint for social relations is adversarial and people are supposed to look after themselves and not after the general interest.
4. Demographic collapse. No arguments here but please get your facts straight (your brother, too): France actually has some the best demographics in Europe. If you want examples of Japan-style demographic collapse in Europe you should look toward Italy, Germany and Russia.
Posted by Olivier on February 21, 2011 at 1:33 pm | permalink |
Great post Olivier!
Posted by Siobhan on February 21, 2011 at 2:02 pm | permalink |
Agree or disagree, this is not the "voice of reason." It's the voice of opinion, maybe the voice of prophecy, maybe some other voice entirely.
If the sector of public service (the kind of union we're talking about mainly) is dead, it's because we decided to kill it, not because it was dying.
Posted by Chris McLaughlin on February 21, 2011 at 1:41 pm | permalink |
I check in on this blog just to see what kind of train wreck is currently happening (kind of the NASCAR syndrome, it guess). This post, however, makes no sense either economically or sociologically. Stick with what you know, which is how to really screw up a personal life and make money writing about it.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, the geniuses out of the University of Chicago are the same ones that have been dominant in advising Mideast countries and Wall Street for years. That turned out really well for all involved.
Posted by Kacy on February 21, 2011 at 1:55 pm | permalink |
Wow! Really disappointed that you can't see how fundamentally undemocratic it is to legislate against unions and collective bargaining. There are two different issues here; the accountability within the union movement – there is definitely room for change but that is an entirely different discussion – and, the attacks against the one defense working people have against the radical forces of the free market which has no sense of responsibility or care towards the labour force. Without the unions there is only exploitation of the young, the poor, women, the under-educated, immigrants and the unemployed, no minimum wages, no health and safety legislation and the continued erosion of democratic rights. Do some reading Penelope and educate yourself on why unions matter so much.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/books/whyunionsmatter.php
http://www.jwj.org/freechoice/unionsmatter/index.html
Am really proud to see that your protestors are being supported in pizza by Australians. We are union and proud!
Posted by Siobhan on February 21, 2011 at 1:56 pm | permalink |
P.S. Penelope, there are still children working in factories. Those children and those factories are in countries where there are no unions. There are places in the world where people don't have the right to vote. Those places have no unions either. There are places in the world where people are legally discriminated against because of race, gender, religion, political persuasion and sexuality. Those places also legislate against unions. Connect the dots Penelope.
Posted by Siobhan on February 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm | permalink |
P doesn't care. She can get on a plane to have her hair cut in LA.
Posted by Vicky on February 21, 2011 at 11:56 pm | permalink |
Your advice and observations have been heeded to foe centuries. Israel, Rome, Reconstruction Era Southern States, Holocaust Era Europe, war-torn Asia, Iraq, earthquake-ravaged California, Hurricane-Katrina Gulf Coast, BP oil-polluted Gulf Coast, recession-rocked America and the African/Middle East uprising regions, etc… ALL HAVE or WILL NEED TO REFLECT, RECONSIDER, RECOMMIT, and READJUST,…if they want to SUCCESSFULLY REBUILD,
Posted by BLC on February 21, 2011 at 2:03 pm | permalink |
WHO MOVED MY CHEESE?
Guys, if you think this post is brilliant, you would be inspired by that book. Check it out. Very deep, indeed.
(Snickering)
Posted by Jessica on February 21, 2011 at 2:18 pm | permalink |
PS – By the way, WHO MOVED MY CHEESE? is the book most distributed to corporate drones in US just before any lay-offs/redundancy; so talk about "Brazen Careerist".
Posted by Jessica on February 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm | permalink |
Who moved my cheese?
1. Change is the only constant.
2. Life isn't fair.
3. You can't push on a rope.
Posted by Big Jay on February 21, 2011 at 2:59 pm | permalink |
Go Penelope Go!! One of your best right here, and I hope it's not only because I wholeheartedly agree with it.
BTW I have a huge career decision to make. Would you be interested in hearing about it? If so email me, I'd love to get as much advice as possible from those I respect.
Posted by finance girl on February 21, 2011 at 3:12 pm | permalink |
Let me see if I get this straight–
unions have no other purpose except to right the wrongs of the early industrial era–i.e., child labor;
collective bargaining, which is the ONLY point that the protesters seem to be holding out for in Wisconsin, means that there is strength/power in numbers, commensurate to the power of the employer–and this is not useful, to have the power to negotiate;
Scott Walker's attempts to pass the budget remedy bill, with no input from the common people (who may also be union members) whose jobs are vastly altered by the bill, is okay . . . We all know how to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, after all. The survival of the fittest, after all.
No, sorry, call it what you will, but the new administration of Scott Walker in Wisconsin, is trying to make all these problems acceptable by saying that we in Wisconsin are broke and we need to pump some money into the Wisconsin budget. Balancing the budget, Walker says, is the only talking point. No again. It is NOT the only talking point. There are many issues, as many as the replies submitted to P's post.
Penelope, the unions may indeed become dinosaurs if the playing field can be leveled in other ways.
Until then, some entity is needed to insist on bargaining. Call it a union. Call it mediation. A newly elected governor cannot simply say "I was elected by the majority–therefore, what I say is law". That kind of thing flies in the face of our notions of democracy and representative government
Posted by chris Keller on February 21, 2011 at 3:17 pm | permalink |
So at the end of your post you say a governor cannot say I won so what I say is law. This is true it needs to pass the senate and assembly then the governor can say that. In this case the votes are clearly there to make this happen so what exactly is your point?
Posted by Mike on February 28, 2011 at 5:21 pm | permalink |
Interesting post. This advice applies just as well to people getting fired due to racism or sexual harassment.
5. Getting fired is a gift.
Indeed!
6. Change is exciting. It opens new doors.
Tell it!
Perhaps you could also rejigger this post for Bernie Madoff's victims as well?
Posted by qed on February 21, 2011 at 3:28 pm | permalink |
Very good way of looking at it. Take a look at this interview with Madoff himself.
http://nymag.com/news/features/berniemadoff-2011-3/
If only he'd taken Penelope's advice and just adapted to the market… oh wait a minute, that's EXACTLY what he did in the late '80s, when he started running a Ponzi scheme in order to adapt to the decline of his legitimate business.
Posted by Ben on March 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm | permalink |
Penelope, here's a tip–do not leave chirpy advice for people who are vilified for working public-sector jobs. Also, that chirpy advice rings pretty hollow when you've done everything you can possibly do and are going on a year or more of being unemployed.
Posted by Reality Check on February 21, 2011 at 3:38 pm | permalink |
Bravo! Great blog post. Time for unions to be dead and buried.
Posted by Joe on February 21, 2011 at 3:39 pm | permalink |
Right on Penelope. Unionized public-sector workers enjoy obscene benefits that their private-sector counterparts do without, especially in tough economic times. And yet, we are expected to subsidize these pensions, these sick-days, this jobs-for-life mentality? The public sector is suppose to serve the public, but for too long it has been the other way around.
Posted by Natasha on February 21, 2011 at 3:41 pm | permalink |
The talking heads will tell you government employees make double private sector counter-parts. That isn't true.
The government unions will tell you government employees make 20% less than private sector matching job to job. That isn't true either.
If you match job to job and include the value of benefits, public sector employees make 7% less than private sector.
Government leaders figured out long ago that a public that is mostly not educated past high school will not willingly accept the government paying private sector style wages to attract quality applicants. To avoid that political problem they have offered job stability and benefits to make up some of the difference, it also allows government to delay paying those costs to another day.
The bill is coming due but the simple question posed is do you really want to increase government wages on the order of 15% to get public and private sector wages to a compatible level to get quality applicants and retain good workers.
You don't get the luxury of having it both ways. If you don't want to pay for the benefits or better than private sector security, then you have to increase wages to get them in line with the private sector.
Posted by Mark F on February 22, 2011 at 3:26 pm | permalink |
Thank you Mark for stating the obvious to those who haven't heard it yet. Very well put. I bet most people have no idea that public jobs pay such low wages and have fixed top-outs that prevent you from keeping up with the cost of living much less getting ahead (yes, we get COLAs most years but they are tiny and many years there are none). You can even get a reduction in salary, a negative COLA. Also, public sector fills jobs with units (not people) that get paid based on a fixed payscale, no matter how good you are at your job. That makes you feel like crap. Public jobs are all about security over salary. I admit I chose security (small town, no jobs) with two kids to raise on my own. But don't envy me, or curse me, for having had employee negotiations. There is no pot of gold in the public sector.
Posted by Diana on February 23, 2011 at 4:11 pm | permalink |
I don't see the harm in having unions. Business and governments negotiate all the time with collective interests: specifically shareholders, other governments, voters, industry groups (PACs, enforcement groups, etc.) and the general public. So why can't they negotiate with employees? To me, it seems a whole lot easier than generally less than stellar HR review efforts that go own among "at-will" employees–Either you are doing your job or you are not. Wouldn't that be great to know what your labor costs were going to be for the next year or even five years?
So as at will employees, could you imagine a teacher in, let's say November, walking in to his or her principal's office and demanding a raise or he/she will quit? If the principal says no, how will that help those students? Do you shuffle classes to increase the number of students in the other classes? Do you tell the parents, "Sorry. I don't have a teacher so your students can no longer attend classes?"
And of course the marketing ploy of firing your worst customer. Should we do the same for our students? "Mary cannot attend classes. I know she's only twelve, but we've decided that the system is spending too much effort on her for too little return. Please find another place for your daughter to go to school."
On another issue, public employees trade higher salaries for long-term commitment in job security and benefits. Overall, I'm sure if you looked at the numbers the total salary would still be less than private employees.
Just some thoughts and no answers.
Posted by Robert Frolick on February 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm | permalink |
Governments are now being forced to look at the same issues the private sector has been dealing with for decades. The fact that only 6.9% of the private workforce is unionized says enough about how employees feel about unionization — paying someone's administrative fees in exchange for rights you already have just isn't an equation that adds up to 93.1% of private sector workers. Businesses close and move. Jobs are lost. Benefits have to change — either in time to save a business or following bankruptcy and new CBAs — because the legacy entitlement costs are crippling. They have to change for government workers too because with every job that is lost, every year with fewer workers ready to be in the workforce, and every retirement that doesn't have a GenY replacement is money that states aren't getting to pay the wages and benefits of their employees.
I am very liberal — so liberal that I would never trust a union rep to speak for me to my employers. Who the hell has MY best interests in mind? The people fighting to fund their unfunded pensions and keep their cushy benefits or just me with my mortgage?
Posted by sarah on February 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm | permalink |
I am in a public sector union and I have the opposite stance of my union on most issues. They worry too much about things that won't do diddly to improve how I do my job and currently advocate some changes I think are bad.
But I am still a member because I know only to well that there are people who have gotten cross-wise with managers for refusing to ignore our statutory mandate and be the one to place their signature on an improper act. The union has successfully defended them and forced the rogue managers out (usually reassigned to some backwater position).
Right now the single biggest problem facing government is that no one (unions included) give a rip about innovations that front-line people would push hard for that could cut costs dramatically. Government is managed top down. The board (ie. legislative body and chief executive) pass down their agenda, the managers shape it as they see fit and the workers implement. Those who have to deal with the flaws have no way to push things back up the ladder. It's GM on steroids.
Posted by Mark F on February 22, 2011 at 3:12 pm | permalink |
For the record, I have mixed feelings on unions, and public sector unions in particular – but your advice was astonishingly misplaced.
"Change is exciting. It opens new doors."
What does this have to do with the right of government employees to organize? What does this have to do Governor Walker's artificially created budget deficit?
"Create stability for yourself with new career tools." What does this have to do with the right (or lack thereof) of government employees to organize? Why were only the Democratic-leaning unions targeted, and the police and fire dept unions spared?
etc, etc.
Posted by qed on February 21, 2011 at 3:59 pm | permalink |
Hmm, I just saw a statistic quoted that Wisconisn schools are second in SAT scores? Why are there always facts on both sides to counter each other and prevent progress. I was wondering when you might write about this, and then what you wrote is unsatisfying. Oversimplifying the complexity is beneath you.
Just because things are being handled poorly, a lot, isn't a reason to tell everyone to accept it as the new normal. Why can't handling change well, in a healthy way, be normal? If the governor did indeed provide an unfunded tax break and caused revenue to fall below the budget, causing the the unmet need and removing a budget surplus, and then attempted to make up the shortfall by taking too much away from people who don't have a lot and didn't do anything wrong – why not say that that is what it is? Why chalk it up to global economic theory? Maybe it is more complicated than that. Maybe a lot of bad or not smart choices are being made too, and it is affecting a lot of people, and maybe because they don't know what is really going on, because they are being told it is just global economics? Have you looked at studies that say that the costs to society and the wealthy of these moves into pure capitalist state is actually greater than the supposed welfare state that being dismantled? Yeah, I don't know all the answers either, but then that's why I'm not telling everyone to stop whining and just go be smart and rich like a normal person, because it is just that simple and than easy, and hurry up because I'm tired of hearing about you on the news.
Posted by Mark on February 21, 2011 at 4:05 pm | permalink |
You are 100% right. That fact that it pissed off so many people proves it. My husband left a print journalism career less than a year ago and has more than doubled his income working in a 21st Century growth sector as a consultant. He also left behind all the deuches who work in that field. When he left last May, a bunch of his old colleagues poo-pooed him. Now they are asking him for a job.
Posted by GeneratonXpert on February 21, 2011 at 4:08 pm | permalink |
This post – along with a good 99% of the comments on it, and 99% of the media coverage on Wisconsin, shows breathtaking ignorance of the fact that the flare-up in Wisconsin has literally NOTHING to do with pensions or "entitlement programs". This is about Walker firing a shot across the bow of labor in general, not just unions and not just teachers. In the same vein as EVERYTHING EVERY OTHER NEWLY ELECTED REPUBLICAN is doing across the country, Walker is playing politics the way it has literally always been played: making an incredibly extreme proposal right off the bat and then allowing it to be bargained down to something less extreme, but still WAY bigger than if you had made a normal, sensible proposal in the beginning.
See also: the effort to totally de-fund HUD, Americorps, etc. Obviously there is no way you can eliminate entire governmental departments and multi-billion dollar programs, but you can use them as a political football to accomplish what you REALLY want. It's just too bad that Walker has chosen to use public employees as his football and steadfastly refuses to reveal his motives or make any remotely sane or workable compromise.
Posted by Kevin on February 21, 2011 at 4:08 pm | permalink |
It seems to me this approach of making extreme proposals and then bargaining it down is pretty normal and not unique to Republicans.
Posted by mysticaltyger on March 28, 2011 at 4:54 am | permalink |
My husband was bullied, manipulated and abused by his last two employers. Thankfully, next week he begins a job where he will be in a union and we can't be happier. Unions sometimes do become overblown and ridiculous, but we still need them to protect workers. There is a reason they exist and it's not just children that are abused in their jobs, especially in this economy. My husband's last boss told his employees that they had to suck it up and do as he said because how would they ever find other jobs?
Posted by Alison on February 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm | permalink |
Just a quick note amongst the bashing to say that this is a great post, and regardless of its political nature, it actually quite un-political. You are talking about careers and changes in the way we are living and approaching work – and you didn't pick a side in the battle. I think it's a smart post and has a lot that needed to be said.
I have lots of very close friends who work for the City of Milwaukee and are very upset about all of this and the loss of their collective bargaining rights, but the fact is that unions were established to protect workers from terrible working environments. Labor laws pretty much fixed most of those. People say they want to negotiate benefits, but I can't think of a single job outside the government sector where you're allowed to do that. Why do they get to be different?
Posted by Tom Meitner on February 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm | permalink |
The disconnect here is that unions draw membership from different demographics than the readership of this blog. Average readers of Penelope's, even one's arguing the unions' side, are more educated and more intellectually malleable than people who depend on union membership for wages, security, etc. Realistically, most people have neither the intellectual tools, nor the emotional resilience that Penelope and we take for granted, and it is they who are perfect candidates for unionization. Unions act as a counterbalance to the corporate bargaining power for workers whose skills and capacity for skill development is lower than P's readership's. They provide stability and security we think no longer afforded to us. In reality, because of education, attitude, or whatever, our security and wages are superior because of education, networking, risk-taking, etc. Traits that lead us to this blog.
Penelope's error in today's post is one of optimism. It is excusable.
Krugman's column today is brilliant and addresses all I wish I had the skill and patience to say in union's favor.
Posted by T on February 21, 2011 at 4:33 pm | permalink |
Ah! Time to unsubscribe to your rss feed and take your book off my amazon wishlist. Thanks!
Posted by Greg G on February 21, 2011 at 4:39 pm | permalink |
To GregG: Sounds like you are very intolerant of other points of view. Nice.
Posted by John Auston on February 21, 2011 at 8:18 pm | permalink |
A tangent, but an important one:
The benefit that matters isn't retirement funds — it's health insurance. It's possible to invest for retirement on your own. In contrast, you can't purchase meaningful health insurance as an individual (see: the entirety of public policy debate in 2009 and 2010). I will believe that we as a nation have solved this problem when the law has been stable for ten years and we've had a chance to see what happens when it's violated (e.g.: does implementation hinge on making the person with skin cancer file suit before s/he can get treatment? then it's not a solution).
Freelancing and entrepreneurship are great — but if you're self-insured, you're reckless. To avoid financial disaster in America, the only insurance policy worth a dime is a legal marriage where one person has a job with a very large employer, and both have careers that facilitate getting hired on by a new, very large employer.
Posted by Erin McJ on February 21, 2011 at 4:56 pm | permalink |
Brave post, and I love it!
Posted by Gwenn on February 21, 2011 at 4:58 pm | permalink |
I guess deleting my comment is an invitation to unsubscribe? Strange, what others wrote is so much worse.
Posted by Mark on February 21, 2011 at 5:01 pm | permalink |
Sorry, nevermind.
Posted by Mark on February 21, 2011 at 5:03 pm | permalink |
I loved reading these comments. And I mostly agree with what you had to say, Penelope. All of the protests haven't been sitting right with me, and while I don't think either side is entirely right, and certainly believe Scott Walker is out of his mind, I just keep wondering why there aren't 60,000 protesters to improve education. I'm not so sure these same teachers would show up for such a march, even though it's what they've chosen to do with their lives. To me, that just shows how horribly the political system is broken (always politics, never actual issues), and how our basic institutions are incredibly broken as well. The Democratic party was built on the "little people," but when it comes down to it, we all just care about ourselves. I have no doubt that the dissolution of unions will be a tremendous blow to the Democratic party. But trust me, both the parties were shattered awhile ago; now we are starting to see the pieces fall apart.
Posted by Rebecca on February 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm | permalink |
Are you sick of highly paid teachers?
Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do – babysit!
We can get that for less than minimum wage.
That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan– that equals 6 1/2 hours).
Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day…maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.
However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.
LET'S SEE….
That's $585 X 180= $105,300
per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).
What about those special
education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an
hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.
Wait a minute — there's
something wrong here! There sure is!
The average teacher's salary
(nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days
= $277.77/per day/30
students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student–a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!
Make a teacher smile; repost this to show appreciation for all educators.
Posted by Theresa on February 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm | permalink |
Theresa: Can I get paid by the number of people I deal with at work, too? I'd be a billionaire. Get real or get a different job. I'm sick of hearing it, especially from teachers. I really am. We all go to work, and we all call it work b/c it's a pain in the ass — not a walk in the park. (Though, you can spend all day in the park all summer.) If you don't like it, if it doesn't seem worth it, or if it isn't sufficiently fulfilling, then get yourself a different job.
Posted by Millie on February 21, 2011 at 8:12 pm | permalink |
"If you don't like it…get a different job."
Says the person who calls work "a pain in the ass."
Posted by Sam on February 28, 2011 at 4:00 pm | permalink |
My prayers and support are with Governor Walker.
First, it was President Obama putting in his two cents. Something about an 'assault' on the unions. No way. Gov. Walker is focused on doing his job which is to cut spending and get the budget under control.
Today, it's Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), launching a fundraising campaign in support of the Wisconsin Democratic lawmakers. Democratic activists have donated more than $250,000 through ActBlue to those lawmakers who have relocated to Illinois. The update is here – http://tinyurl.com/64lhlo7 .
It didn't take long did it. All that talk about civility and civil discourse. The battleground is in Wisconsin – at least for now. It will move to other states as they grapple with their own budget and unique problems.
Posted by Mark W. on February 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm | permalink |
Hi Mark,
If I am following you correctly, I'm just wondering what you do with facts not in dispute like, for instance the type of thing on the other side like the notorious Koch brothers having a great deal of business interests in Wisconsin and across the nation and have economic interest in reducing the strength of unions and are very involved in reducing that strength, and very open about it – and they are big contributors to Republicans and the governor.
Not that I think business should go unrepresented or not have a voice in government. But you can understand people's skepticism that the governor is just doing this because it is sound policy, and not a schill for big business, right? I mean it is well documented that big business is funding the so-called "grass roots" movements – and the outcome significantly favors big business interests more than the interests of those in the grass roots movements.
I'm just saying, and forgive me if I'm reading you wrong, that it is hard for me to get where you are, knowing all of this, and I can't really blame people for disbelieving the messages and the motives.
Posted by Mark on February 21, 2011 at 7:50 pm | permalink |
My understanding of the current situation is Governor Walker was elected by the people of Wisconsin to do a job which includes fiscal responsibility. He has a track record in the county of which he was county executive which included Milwaukee. He has first hand knowledge of negotiating with unions in the public sector which hold a monopoly. Unions are not doing very well in the business sector where no monopoly exists. This makes sense to me. So there are a couple of things which are going on here that I don't like. The education system which includes unions in the public sector does not exist in a competitive environment. Also I don't think President Obama or Sen. Schumer should be involving themselves in the fiscal problems of the state of Wisconsin. Of course they are since our education system is so intertwined with our political system and failed economic model. This whole fiasco is so political that it's ridiculous. Sen. Schumer should be making some more trips to upstate NY where I live and an area he should be reporting more to (he is a public servant) so that he can focus his attention on similar school problems here.
Posted by Mark W. on February 22, 2011 at 7:43 am | permalink |
As a twenty something, I firmly believe that unions should be primarily a thing of the past. They were great for the past but we've seen they don't work for our future. Schools are keeping horrible teachers who have no accountability. Car companies are financially wrecked because they have to maintain costly (and ridiculous in comparison to the average company) benefit plans. Unions are failing in the twenty first century.
It makes me more sad that fellow Democrats are using politics as a reason to keep unions going. Who cares what's good for the country and economy if it hurts our fund-raising. I'd like to think that most people vote with their values rather than the best campaign commercial. And don't even get me started on the merits of lobbying.
Unions shouldn't be abolished completely but they should be for special cases where employees truly are getting the short end of the stick (ie. Walmart).
Posted by Rachel on February 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm | permalink |
Penelope, no doubt there's wisdom in the observation that the "entitlement" era is changing and that people will just need to get over it and move on.
However, that reality smack upside the head is much easier for a 29-year old to hear than a 52-year old who has contributed to the social security plan (without option to abstain) for DECADES. Boomers have been upholding their end of that contract for their entire work history, only to be told now "Well… sorry… sucks to be you. Wake up and take a look at the 'emerging jobs' market."
Surely Boomers are entitled to at least one last benefit: the right to be seriously pissed off for at least twenty minutes before we "move on" and try to figure out what the hell to do now.
Posted by kathy on February 21, 2011 at 6:18 pm | permalink |
Here are three websites that offer some straight data:
Bureau of Economic Analysis/U. S. Dept of Commerce: Per capita personal income, 2009 (See Wisconsin) http://bit.ly/eO1Ddq
The WI Department of Public Instruction (DPI)Average Teacher Salary for 2010 http://bit.ly/g4YoWB
PolitiFact Wisconsin re: Walker Tax Cuts cause deficit http://me.lt/248OW
Posted by KatieN on February 21, 2011 at 6:23 pm | permalink |
1. Per capita personal income, is $37,398 in 2009 http://www.bea.gov/regional/spi/drill.cfm
2. The WI Department of Public Instruction (DPI)Average Teacher Salary for 2010 is $49,093–not including fringe benefits also paid with tax dollars.
3. PolitiFact Wisconsin re: The claim that Walker Tax cuts cause deficit is not true. Tax cuts don't kick in until next budget.
Posted by KatieN on February 21, 2011 at 6:44 pm | permalink |
Well done on uncovering facts; there are also facts about the Koch brothers, openly union busting, how large a contributor they are to the governor and others, and facts about how that kind of work is going on in the nonunion labor market as well – so if union pay and benefits are compared to the declines in the private sector then yeah they look good now, but that is not a fair comparison of "facts."
Not that I found anything wrong with your post, I meant the well done, but there are people commenting that seem to select facts and ignore others, and they will jump on your choice facts.
I'm surprised at some of the comments about the fairness of the private workplace – people don't seem to believe that the private sector ever does anything bad and that companies don't ever collude to game the system and knowlingly screw over the less powerful. Some people seem to not have experienced or seen any news on the manipulations that are the reality. The private sector is not interested in fairness or rewarding knowledge and hard work. If you are being rewarded for your knowledge and hardwork, you must know someone is working hard at making sure that that expense can be eliminated, and that often comes as a surprise to the otherwise successful people who are affected.
Penelope herself has pointed out facts about those joining the workforce at boom times do better there whole lives compared to those who come in in the downturns. What does that fact say, that there are circumstances and large forces at work, or that coincidentally those joining the workforce at a downturn are all whiner losers with no work ethic?
I wish we could get ALL the facts on the table and then we could have solutions.
Posted by Mark on February 22, 2011 at 2:32 am | permalink |
I enjoy reading your articles. Please note Mayor Bloomberg's first name is Michael.
Posted by janice on February 21, 2011 at 6:34 pm | permalink |
I don't always agree with you Penelope and I don't agree with most of what you wrote you here but I will keep reading your posts – they make me think.
What bothers me about Gov. Walker's actions are that he is throwing out something that has been a government staple for years (collective bargaining) and that he is being completely inflexible about it. I don't want to see a precedent set for the former and the zealotry evident in the latter is distasteful at best.
I am not a big fan of unions. They start out with good intentions (work fair hours for fair pay, value safety, etc.) and over time devolve into "us vs them" mentality. As part of that evolution though, unions will fail over time. The autoworkers' unions have had to concede that the pay rates and benefits they demanded were no longer sustainable. Unions will have to reinvent themselves to remain current, or they will die. Walker would be smarter to push for concessions and chip away at union power over time – by the end of his term I bet he would have won much of what he's demanding now and would have done so in a much less polarizing fashion.
The good jobs aren't in the public sector, haven't been for some time. Smart people know this and pursue work elsewhere, through jobs at private companies or self employment.
Posted by Kathryn on February 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm | permalink |
Kathryn, did you know that collective bargaining laws vary state to state? As an example, VA doesn't have any collective bargaining laws … and they have a balanced budget. One doesn't necessarily follow the other but it is fact for that state. Also FDR didn't believe in collective bargaining in the public sector. Here's a link to a short, recent article – http://tinyurl.com/48e9zsj .
Posted by Mark W. on February 22, 2011 at 6:47 pm | permalink |
Kathryn, I didn't imply that Virginia has a balanced budget because they don't allow collective bargaining.
I said – "One doesn't necessarily follow the other but it is fact for that state."
I left it at that and went on to provide a link that mentioned FDR's thoughts on collective bargaining and unions in the public sector. As liberal as he was in his political views, he had it right. The best part of the link which I provided is the one link within the article. The article link is http://tinyurl.com/2emx7co and the article title is 'The Trouble with Public Sector Unions'. It mentions a few states such as NY and NJ and their histories with the public sector unions and the large bills they now have to pay into pensions and health care benefits.
I mentioned VA because it is one of two states (the other being NC) that hasn't allowed unions in the public sector. Consequently VA and NC don't have these bills to worry about. Here's a link to an article ( http://tinyurl.com/63uwk72 ) in a Richmond, VA newspaper that has details about the laws prohibiting public sector unions in that state. Also, VA is a right-to-work state (no union membership required) which they say is good for business.
Posted by Mark W. on February 24, 2011 at 8:03 pm | permalink |
While this blog was specifically about the Union action (and, yes, I'm invested. I already gave up a measly 2% raise and took a 3% pay cut in the form of furloughs over the last two years. Now, they want 7% of my income while giving corporations huge tax breaks. How about I give up 3.5% of my income and we raise taxes on my tax bracket 3.5% to make it "even"), the bill has much deeper, scarier implications. If it passes Walker will be able to kick people off BadgerCare (for low-come kids and pregnant women), allow outside interests (read Koch brother industries) to buy/run state energy facilities (like the electricity plant on the UW campus at prices the state – e.g. Walker himself – deems reasonable; the bill will also disrupt Metro service because Madison would lose $45 million in federal funding as a result of the union-busting of the public transport system, and finally, it would spin off the flagship school, allowing differential disbursement of funds within the UW system. In a 144-page bill, it's not just about the unions. And finally, when did stepping on each others' faces to get "mine" become the "American Way"?
BadgerCare: http://www.theawl.com/2011/02/burning-down-wisconsin-the-hidden-budget-bill-item-even-worse-than-union-busting
Outside interests: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/947954/-The-other-part-of-the-Scott-Walker-plan:-Firesale-of-Wisconsin-state-assets
Metro: http://www.channel3000.com/traffic/26908918/detail.html
UW: http://www.channel3000.com/education/26889293/detail.html
Posted by Melanie on February 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm | permalink |
Woo Hoo! Go Penelope. People need to take care of themselves, work hard and work smart, and then they will be fine, and we all be better off. Thanks for not pussy footing.
Posted by Millie on February 21, 2011 at 8:00 pm | permalink |
We work hard; we work as smart as we know how; and sometimes we still aren't better off. I'm 54, starting a new career. Again. How old are you?
Posted by Angela DuBois on February 23, 2011 at 8:39 pm | permalink |
As a non-union member working for a private corporation that is certainly not a pleasant working environment, I fully support unions. And yes, I'm already working to remove myself from that situation. Unfortunately, this bill and others similar to it also seek to cut funding for me to obtain health care, and education, thus cutting off my path out of what I consider a hellhole. I was born into debt, and my mother's choice to essentially steal my identity to keep electricity in our home growing up was inevitable, so please don't bother telling me it's because I don't work hard enough that I am below the poverty level. My credit score was destroyed before I was supposed to have one. But I digress…
Basically, without the right to organize ourselves, we cannot protest the things we do not agree with. Corporations are operated in a somewhat pyramidal fashion, with the few at the top making the largest salaries (The CEO and owners of course) and the largest base of employees making at least minimum wageâthanks to those who fought for their collective bargaining rights and effectively won better treatment for ALL workers. This is the natural organization for any company of a large size; of course someone has to be in charge, and someone else has to do all the work. What I find most interesting is how these sorts of corporations will cut base employee salaries and lay them off before the CEO will even consider shortening one of his vacations by a week, yet these employees are the ones carrying the bulk of the company's load. I'm not exaggerating, the undisclosed (because they'll fire me) company I work for spent more on the CEO's birthday party last year than they did the entire year on badly needed maintenance and equipment. They also fired at least 5 long-term employees for no reason other then they were replacing them with newer employees (that they'd be paying less).
We may not have children working in factories, but we have corrupt CEO's who purposefully maintain a high-turnover rate to save their company money, and who willfully fire long-term employees without adequate reasoning and advance notice. And they get away with it, because there is no organization for the employees to turn to when they are being unfairly treated, because their company has prohibited even the organization of a simple bake sale by employees.
Instead of conducting business in fear of employee uprisings, why don't they just try treating their employees like they would wish to be treated themselves? That way, they needn't fear retaliation. However, as it currently stands, employees fear retaliation from employers for disagreeing with them. Or for medical absences…For instance, at my workplace, your first day of absence is inexcusable, even with a doctors note. That makes it possible for them to fire you for becoming ill, which is technically illegal. Without an organization to turn to, however, most cannot do anything but look for another job and hope to collect unemploymentâa practice which was also won by the unions in our country.
This is just another example of someone saying that it's the fault of an individual for staying in a situation where they are being mistreated.
Victims of rape get the same treatment.
Posted by Lex on February 21, 2011 at 8:09 pm | permalink |
"If the democrats cannot win elections without union backing, then the democrats need a new platform"
Penelope – I felt the need to reply, although I did not manage to make it though the rest of the comments, that this comment of yours seems kind of bizarre in the face of massive corporate and religions interest groups backing the republican party. This isn't really about a platform, but about the sources of money supporting different political goals. One side cutting off the other under the excuse of fiscal crisis seems likely to lead to a suppression of non-big-business interests. I personally found it chilling to read this interview with Scott Fitzgerald: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/21/133932040/Wisconsin-Protests/
In other words, this is kind of like how my dad, a drilling engineer and high-level manager for a large international oil company, would donate to Greenpeace because he knew how much money was coming from the other side. I'm not a huge union person, and I no longer live in Wisconsin, but I think removing them hastily and unilaterally like this is going to hurt a lot of people. The protests are not about stopping change but about retaining a voice.
(Also, Scott Walker really doesn't have a track record that makes me trust his motives and abilities.)
Posted by Jocelyn on February 21, 2011 at 8:11 pm | permalink |
Bravo!…I am impressed with your Blog on this subject and I don't get impressed very often. This is a matter that the kids need to come first and in order for that to happen the Teachers Union needs to go. For all the good teachers in Wisconsin, your jobs are safe and you will end up doing better when all the bad apples are removed and individual performance (yours) gets rewarded.
Posted by Dennis on February 21, 2011 at 8:17 pm | permalink |
Penelope,
I don't take issue with your commentary about embracing change and adapting to the changing workforce. But I would disagree with your views on the protest occurring in Madison. It's more than just quibbling about lost wages or higher premiums. It's about fighting for justice and not allowing corporate puppets like Governor Walker to trump all over his constituents' rights on his way to the next political post while scapegoating working families. Ambition is fine, but in Wisconsin I like to believe we are rational people that value our neighbors. If anything, Walker should have made his wealthier allies pay more in taxes. Instead they get to keep their money.
The most offensive statement in your piece was the bit about Wisconsin public schools being among the lowest performing. That statement is inaccurate. I have the following links to help you review and compare performance data among different states.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/
Here are two other links for you to review about ACT/SAT scores by state:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_144.asp (SAT scores breakdown by state)
http://www.act.org/news/data/07/states.html
(ACT score breakdown)
Overall, I think our teachers are doing a good job in Wisconsin. They don't deserve to be picked on. Americans need to wake up and make big businesses and the financial sector accountable for the national fiscal mess we're in.
Posted by Elizabeth on February 21, 2011 at 8:48 pm | permalink |
Well, I don't agree with this, to the extent of thinking you're wrong about pretty much every point, but you've written well enough on other things that I'll stick around to see what you come up with next.
That said, there's one thing that really stood out to me. You said:
"Not because they are disloyal, but because they are realistic in that no job lasts forever, and few last even two years. Career changes used to be something saved for mid-life crises, but today, people can expect to change careers five times, which means that the idea of a pension is off the radar."
To which I'd ask — how many years of experience do you think a teacher needs to reach their best potential? I'd think at least the first two or three are spent just learning everything (not counting two+ years of schooling and practice teaching), to go through a full lesson plan more than once, to deal with students day-in and day-out in all seasons, to teach for whichever standardized tests are being judged…. Asking people to go into teaching expecting that they'll only last even four or five years seems like an unacceptable turnover to me.
Posted by Ben T-Moore on February 21, 2011 at 9:05 pm | permalink |
Sadly the need for unions remains. Here in a state that is very hostile to union activity a fellow attorney makes a hefty living suing employers, most governments, because of their open and notorious violations of labor laws. He will tell you that for everyone he represents many times more refuse to come forward out of fear. Most cases he handles would never have happened had a union been in place.
Funny thing about the end of security and benefits. Government has consistently paid below market (for comparable positions) and used security and benefits as it's sales pitch. Is government willing to pay market or concede more attractive candidates?
Posted by Mark F on February 21, 2011 at 9:45 pm | permalink |
Naive but relevant post that touches on important aspects – developed countries' demographic challenge and volatile, formerly stable industries competing with former developing countries.
However, I am surprised about the one-sided negative perspective on unions; could that be due to the character of American unions?
To be frank, it surprises me to even hear about American unions. The stereotypical 'American model' that I have heard of is more like:
- No unions and no worker's protection
- No unemployment insurance
- No public health care system (or a very rudimental one)
- High crime rates and a huge gap between rich and poor areas; money extremely important to get on the right side of those 'welfare filters'
- Private health insurance so expensive that usually it is part of job packages, making workers dependant on keeping their job if they or their family get sick
Conclusion: due to lack of unemployment insurance / safety net and public health insurance and due to an extremely strong focus on material wealth, Americans are more concerned with job security than most others.
Is that conclusion off the mark?
Now, since you tell that there are unions and they hamper job market flexibility by trying to protect incompetent workers trying to hang on to extinct careers – and that the American situation can be extrapolated to 'the world' – Here is my 'world' experience:
In my Scandinavian home country (live in Australia today), the job market model is: high protection of workers' rights, high minimum wages, advanced public health system, advanced public infrastructure / transport system, free quality education for everybody, many public goods, low discrepancy between rich and poor, minimal crime rates, a strong sense of safety, and obviously: high taxes.
These aspects are supposed to make the job market more flexible; because people have less fear of loosing their job due to the strong social security, less focus on money, and because education is free and the educational system is very flexible, so it is easy to change / upgrade one's skills.
Obviously, high minimum wages and protection of workers' rights don't precisely enhance competitiveness and there is a heated debate about how to improve the flexibility of the work force in the face of the demographic challenges and competition from former developing countries; the job market is under pressure from the International competition, just like anywhere else.
The unions, who introduced and fought for the Scandinavian job market model, did cause heaps of trouble in the past, haunted employers and slowed down job market flexibility and economic growth. They have lost much of the old kind of power though and today work more with industries than against them I think, to re-educate workers and support creation of new jobs rather than defending what can't stand.
Maybe the unions don't need to be part of the problem, they can be part of the solution; part of helping the workforce to re-calibrate itself and take on the new challenges. (if Scandinavian experiences can be generalised to the US)
However, they do need funding and support then. Just like people do need resources in order to upgrade themselves, and they do need basic safety (food, health service if required) so they can lift their focus from struggling to put food on the table and care for sick kids to make uncertain investments in future career changes.
Posted by Anna on February 21, 2011 at 9:57 pm | permalink |
Well said, I don't know why that is lost on Americans – do we know for a fact that they are paying less in a private system than more socialist public systems? Are they sure that making things more equal means everyone will just be equally poor? I don't understand how Americans are so convinced of what they think they know when they can just look at actual real life examples operating in other countries before making up their mind. Those countries have their problems too, their not perfect, but if a larger portion of their society is enjoying a better quality of life than Americans, why are we taught to be against the means with which they acquired that?
Posted by Mark on February 22, 2011 at 1:50 am | permalink |
I can only base this on what I have read about Scandinavia…but there is a much less corrupt mindset on the part of government, the unions, and the citizens in Scandinavia than in the US. In the US, the mentality is to focus on very narrow, short-term interests and ignore the interests of the larger society. It's true for business, the individual, the government, and the unions. I get the feeling that Scandinvavians understand that the benefit to the society at large is important, whereas this is ignored in the US, regardless of which person/group being referred to.
Posted by mysticaltyger on March 28, 2011 at 5:22 am | permalink |
PS…as you point out later in your post, the unions in Scandinavia adapted to changing conditions. I belong to a union in the US public sector and I can tell you, trying to get the union to change its way of doing business is next to impossible. They are extremely inflexible and rigid in their thinking!!!!
Posted by mysticaltyger on March 28, 2011 at 5:26 am | permalink |
J… that's too long for a comment. Please feel free to delete my comment above, I have saved it somewhere else and might use the topic for a blog post later.
Posted by Anna on February 21, 2011 at 10:00 pm | permalink |
My mom just went through a strike in the last year. (MN Nurses v. Hospitals) When it was all said and done the Union and hospital executives went to the table and the Union came out as the "winner." It was a bunch of bull and propaganda on the Union's part. My mom went on strike and supported the union but in the end realized the union wasn't working to the benefit of the nurses. It was working towards it's own SELF SUSTAINING PLATFORM.
I will never receive a pension in my life. I don't trust that any SS will be left either. This is why in Finance 101 they make you calculate how much retirement savings you will have if you start saving at 25 v. 35 v. 45. It's you're responsibly. The world is changing and people better start changing with it. I also happen to underwrite Group Life insurance and let me tell you first hand, employers are not looking to spend their own money on employee benefits anymore. If you want to make money in group insurance these days you better figure out how to offer outstanding voluntary benefits. Here here Miss P.
Posted by Amanda on February 21, 2011 at 10:21 pm | permalink |
I don't doubt your experience with the unions, but it is also true that not that long ago "things were changing" because unions were being born in response to abuses and are the reason we now enjoy weekends and 8 hour/40 hour work limits. If you take your own point "things are changing and we better change with them" and take a little bit longer view, you'd couldn't miss that unions were part of the upward sweep of humanity, and big business that funds phony grass root orgs to get people to vote for a candidate that works for big business, will not be doing anything for non-union people after they're done with the unions. A further lack of group leverage does not benefit us. The rich use group leverage for their own benefit – they just don't call it a union.
Posted by Mark on February 22, 2011 at 1:37 am | permalink |
Your mission is to write about the intersection of work and life, right?
I agree: unions that are specific to worksites are anachronistic. But thus far, no one has come up with ways to get today's workers what they really need: portable health care and benes.
Until there is a way for all of us individual entreprenurial workers to (ahem) collectively figure out a way to make benes portable, we still need the dying husks of unions. As a bridge.
Sometimes I think you ignore the benes problem for modern workers because you consider it insoluble. But it's exactly the kind of thing we could use your/BC's leadership on. If we can talk about miscarriages, can't we talk about not being able to take our kids to the doctor because we can't afford insurance, and what a drain that is for economic development?
Want to end unions ethically? Portable, real benes for everyone would do it. Let's talk about that.
Posted by Nowgirl on February 21, 2011 at 10:39 pm | permalink |
I don't know anything about Wisconsin cheese unions or whatever, but the lesson I got out of this post is – learn to cope with change.
Also, this is one of the most heartless blogs I've read, which is the reason I read it. I'm one of those strange people who would rather hear harsh truths than pretend nothing is wrong.
Posted by Bob on February 21, 2011 at 11:20 pm | permalink |
PS. I like to compare unions with democracy or capitalism – it's not a perfect system, but nobody's thought of a working alternative yet.
Posted by Bob on February 21, 2011 at 11:21 pm | permalink |
Great way to get your email list/subscribers cleaned up for 2011. I live in your former town (NYC) home to the largest population of union members. If it was not for unions these employees would be tripling the welfare population as they would have no other function in society. I read this post at 11 a.m. and wanted to circle back and read the comments as I knew the comments would be a great read as well. P, either you really believe this or are you just kicking up your SEO? Please reveal. Oh, and you must know The Housemartins song Me and the Farmer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLOyF50wlBU
Yes that is Fatboy Slim (Norman Cook) playing bass.
Stay warm – 2 more months 'til all that Wisconsin snow melts.
Posted by mj on February 22, 2011 at 12:12 am | permalink |
Very interesting post, I agree with your thoughts 100%. I wonder… Would make the same suggestions for a less-stable economy (ironically BECAUSE of the strength of the unions) like Greece?
Posted by Kaiti on February 22, 2011 at 3:11 am | permalink |
Furthermore, on a more philosiophical note, how do you get a mass group of people, not only to accept change, but to embrace it?
Posted by Kaiti on February 22, 2011 at 3:13 am | permalink |
Unions are change. They are groups, everything is in groups, government, lobbyists, the wealthy leverage groups to get what they want, why single out "union" as the bad one causing all the problems? Should we just get rid of all groups?
Unions brought "change" are the instigators of "change," the kind of change that you currently now enjoy as a working person. What you are talking about "changing back."
If unions had just stopped at child labor laws, we should be okay with rolling those laws back because unions like those laws? Does anyone remember learning about the results of unchecked market capitalism in our history. We would not have progressed without the unions or even be having this conversation.
Posted by Mark on February 22, 2011 at 7:39 am | permalink |
If more people focused on #3 and #4, maybe we could improve education and quality of life, instead of "fighting" for the status quo. If there is no money in the bank, there is no way to pay for anything, not salary, not benefits, not buildings ….
Posted by Christine on February 22, 2011 at 5:43 am | permalink |
Penelope, your fix for these employment/job loss problems is to strike out on one's own–finding or creating one's next position.
Others have pointed out that it is the highly educated, highly motivated person who reads your blog, who would be capable of this fix. Those persons probably also fearlessly welcome change as stimulating and motivating . . . These people are probably in the minority.
Most people need the power of numbers (i.e., collective bargaining) in order to fix their job problems. And most people have at least some trepidation about change . . . IMHO.
Posted by chris Keller on February 22, 2011 at 7:16 am | permalink |
Get a better fact checker, P.
First off, teachers are fired all the time. The difference is that they can't be summarily walked out when they have union representation. Given how teachers have to deal with parents and politicians, I think having some due process is good. Ask any biology teacher who's had to deal with a creationist school board how that works out in a non-union school district.
Second, gov't employment isn't stable. That's a myth, so do your research. Political change especially drives turnover in those states without unions for gov't workers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/04/government-jobs-no-longer_n_635015.html
Third, the union negotiated contracts were for deferred compensation. Executives use this all the time, why do you think it is ok for a CEO but not for a teacher? (And why does Gov. Walker think unions are ok for cops but not teachers?)
Your link regarding Wisconsin schools being worst-in-country doesn't even substantiate that, it just links to a report of high schools. Reading that list WI schools look better than KS, ND, and others… again where are the facts I count on you to have as basis for your opinions?
You're there. Go do your research, maybe go talk to the folks at the capitol, then post something real. What "insane and anachronistic powers" are you possibly referring to anyway?
Posted by ejly on February 22, 2011 at 9:11 am | permalink |
This is interesting. "Two-Thirds of Wisconsin Public-School 8th Graders Can't Read ProficientlyâDespite Highest Per Pupil Spending in Midwest" http://cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g
Posted by Cathy Reisenwitz on February 22, 2011 at 9:18 am | permalink |
Cathy, If you look at the report the article references, you'll find that Wisconsin is actually better than the national average (34% read at proficient level or above in WI vs 30% nationally, p. 63 of the NCES report). It's a sad statement about the nation but not WI specifically.
Posted by Kathryn on February 22, 2011 at 9:40 am | permalink |
Right on, Penelope:
I work for the public sector and I say it is behind in a lot of ways. You would be surprised how much control unions have over the organizational agenda beyond just pay and benefits. An example: one thing we want to do here in Baltimore is improve the bus system so it works for middle class people, but the big hangup is the unions. They won't let us make any changes. Unions are adverse to change even when it works better for the customers.
Aside from unions, the public sector rewards stagnation and pensions are one of those outdated policies that keep mediocre/bad employees around in an organization for 30-40 years. After 30 years in a job, you can't possibly innovate or contribute to change. Your institutional. The public sector would be wise to look to companies like Zappos to attract and retain the right people for the right amount of time.
The public sector could probably do more with fewer more dedicated folks who aren't just looking to sit in their cushy jobs. Generation Y, which I'm part of, won't stick around in the public sector for long if they are going to continue to reward stagnation and neglect talent.
The contributions unions have made to the middle class are overstated, because most of the radical protest movements that brought new rights emerged from the unemployed, not the employed, during the great depression. Labor rights were concessions, not ultimate goals. Many groups wanted to go much further than the unions. The institutionalization of unions and collective bargaining destroyed the ability of working class folks to create grassroots change.
Posted by Paul Day on February 22, 2011 at 9:27 am | permalink |
"Maybe I could understand this if it was 1880 and we had children working in factories."
We do — millions of them. UNICEF estimates that there are about 158 million workers between the ages of 5 and 14. Worldwide, that's about 1 in 6 kids.
There aren't many in the United States. But we've contributed to this number by exporting manufacturing jobs overseas, where social and environmental regulations are less stringent, and there are fewer pesky unions to insist employers act responsibly or even lawfully.
We buy products produced overseas by child labor. Everyone knows this is going on and everyone knows this is immoral, but we love cheap electronics and shoes. So let's not pretend that the worldwide decline of unionism is because the conditions which fostered the movement were remedied. We just pushed them into the shadows, upon people who haven't the power to resist.
Maybe those kids need sharper resumes and better job-hunting skills.
Posted by Chris Baskind on February 22, 2011 at 9:44 am | permalink |
Do you really think teaching is a dead end job? What would you do with all the kids who need educating? Do you really think it is a cushy job and does not need union protection? I've seen a non-tenured teacher fired because a board of ed. member did not like the grade his daughter got from that teacher. Is this right? Maybe we should require all parents to stay at home and home-school their kids and then we could reduce the number of people needing employment AND get rid of all the costs of public education. I'm sure our society would be better off.
Posted by Janet on February 22, 2011 at 10:15 am | permalink |
As someone who works HR in the public sector, the idea that union employees can't be fired is complete bullshit. I have fired union employees. I've also fired non-union employees. The process of progressive discipline is the same either way. What we largely have issues with is management too finicky to dirty their hands with creating the documentation necessary to avoid lawsuits. Anecdotal information is not fact.
Posted by Carolyn on February 22, 2011 at 10:42 am | permalink |
I spent years defending an employer in wrongful termination cases and lost more than I won because managers failed to document. Instead they let it all slide until they finally had it and terminated the employee who then promptly presented their great performance reviews and no disciplinary actions as evidence of the wrongful termination.
Posted by Mark F on February 22, 2011 at 11:48 am | permalink |
Some other thoughts this raises.
1. I agree completely that the defined benefit pension era is over. It was an accident created by the post-World War II era when we had little competition for goods manufactured in the US.
2. The personal retirement account is beautiful idea with many merits, but as we saw during the heart of the downturn, people faced with losing their homes or cars and unable to maintain what they considered an acceptable lifestyle dug into that money to meet today's needs at a time when the values were greatly dimished. That is a bill that will come due in a couple decades.
3. While personal retirement accounts in a macro view provide greater wealth and stability, life is lived in the micro view. If on January 1, 2008 you resolved to retire on the last day of the year, your financial ability to do so relying on market based instruments was likely no longer present. If you were healthy, that meant delaying retirement. However of the five people I know who retired recently, four did so for health reasons. One died four months later from a terminal illness. One has a respiratory issue that requires frequent hospitalizations and is moving into an assisted living facility. Two retired because they required surgery that would have placed them off work for many months. One is off fishing, golfing and seeing the world. Retirement in my experience is about no longer being able to sustain your work rather than a glorious end of life holiday. A purely market driven retirement fund is an invitation to poverty if your retirement clashes with economic downturn. That's why you better pay attention to what is happening with "entitlement" programs.
Karma is noted to be a bitch and people who dismiss the social safety net might well find their retirement portfolio severely eroded at the instant a careless driver or an unfortunate mutation in their body ends their working career.
Posted by Mark F on February 22, 2011 at 11:46 am | permalink |
"…he's smart enough to go into hedge funds instead of teaching," talking about her brother. What, somehow being a hedge fund broker means you're smarter than a teacher? That's a bit presumptuous. He just makes more money; it doesn't mean he's smarter. Okay, I take that back: He's smart about where you can make money.
"… 4. Stop picking jobs based on long-term benefits." What? The only reason public workers traditionally want good benefits is because they're paid so shitty. I assure you if doctors and lawyers and engineers and bankers and Wall Street scum didn't make obscene amounts of money they would want a meager pension to retire with too. And they'd be marching w/ signs too. It's motivated self-interest. I can't believe PT doesn't recognize the snowball effect of taking down a public union. One little breeze will blow this little house of cards down.
This idea PT has about adaptability is like something Gordon Gecko would say in "Wall Street." It's all about taking what you can now, short term profits, greed is good. And it's the dark side of capitalism. It never wants to fess up to the bigger picture of community, environmental sustainability, worker health, abandoned communities, destroyed land, water, habitat, etc.
PT has her points of view, and all are worth listening to. But she can be irritating and even arrogant and condescending at the same time, which I'm sure is part of her appeal and calculation as a blogger.
Less than 7-8% of the workforce is unionized, and most of these are public employees. I know all the arguments about limited government, the obscene pay, benefits, tenure of public employees, but comparing unions w/ public unions is silly.
It's not about protesting change that the unions in Wisconsin are picketing. It's being singled out, made a scapegoat for everything that's wrong w/ America. Unions: the new villains. I don't buy it. PT trivializes the debate by simplifying it. It may make good copy, is a good word-bite, but I think she's just being an opportunist, much like she was w/ the veterans.
I like muckrakers like PT, and I even like most of her suggestions, agree w/ her, think she has original ideas about the world of work. But this battle w/ the teacher's unions has been a political battle, one that starts and ends w/ which end of the political spectrum you're on. The Right wants to privatize education; the Left want to keep it a public trust–and more importantly, to continue funding it. I know I'm tired of weaselly politicians using education and teachers' unions as "red meat" for their ideological base when it's election time. I've seen it now for thirty years.
Sure, the public unions in Wisconsin are screwed. She's right about that, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't make a stand. Getting rid of teacher unions won't improve education. Those with the means will still buy a good education for their kids. The operative word is BUY, as in it takes money, funding. And those without the money … well, who cares about them. Let's just put them in jail. Now that's a cost-effective measure, isn't it. Pay the piper now or pay it later. There's always a price–or better yet a required investment needed to run a family, society, civilization.
The poor will always get screwed, and of all the professions I see teachers as the lowest rung on the Darwinian economic ladder, so I can't help but root for them. Maybe I'm biased, but then again so is PT.
And, hey, that's alright. PT would be the first to challenge an assumption, a common wisdom. She's good at it, and it's made her successful–as a writer. As a philosopher, a historian, a sociologist, a econ. theorist, a pontiff of the American milieu I'm not as convinced.
Posted by dana on February 22, 2011 at 11:50 am | permalink |
I tried to read this until I reached the part about how children don't work in factories. Quite a lot do, in fact. And yes, slavery in America still exists. I'm not even pro-union, but I know this. How old are you, five?
Posted by NKNBK on February 22, 2011 at 2:10 pm | permalink |
"Maybe I could understand this if it was 1880 and we had children working in factories."
We will soon have child labor again, thanks to the same political party that is union-busting in Wisconsin. See Missouri Senate Bill 222, details here:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/475205/missouri_gop_wants_to_repeal_child_labor_laws/
"Wisconsin public schools are among the lowest performing in the country. "
That link goes to the US News ranking of schools, but the US News ranking criteria are opaque and certainly not authoritative.
Over here, a much better discussion:
http://studentactivism.net/2011/02/21/teachers-unions-actsat-and-student-performance-is-wisconsin-out-ranking-the-non-union-states/
Notice in particular that in ACT/SAT rankings, high school graduation rates, and NEAP ratings, Wisconsin is near the top; and all states that have made teacher's unions illegal, are clustered at the bottom of the rankings.
It's not going to help anyone to destroy the teachers.
Posted by Doug K on February 22, 2011 at 2:15 pm | permalink |
Let's just get this straight. the citizens elected the Governor to do what is best for the State, the state is broke and requires a strong person to reorganize the budget, he is attempting to do so. There will need to be sacrifices from the citizens, that involves tough decisions. Unions aren't a sacred cow, they have to grow and flex to be relevant or they become irrelevant, the unions did some good things and now with some of the unions not taking into consideration their positions that may chase away jobs to countries that are non-unionized. Things change… they are born go though puberty and become robust and then become less and less productive and then retire and so the circle of life. Perhaps it is time!
Posted by Woody on February 22, 2011 at 2:42 pm | permalink |
Virtually every job that can be done for under a dollar an hour in China or Vietnam or India has already gone. That's not union doing. Unions didn't drive those jobs overseas, rather extremely depressed wages in those places coupled with easy transport goods and uniform trade agreements making it easy and cheap to get the goods here did it. Most manufactured goods not requiring high technical skill (and many that do) are produced by people working at a fraction of the US minimum wage, so-called union wages don't even enter the equation.
Pat Buchanan has said for years the great flaw in free trade policy is that we free trade as if equals with nations that don't play by our rules.
We have a choice. Do we play with everyone or do we just play with nations like Canada, Japan and the European Union who pay similar wages, impose similar workplace safety rules, similar environmental rules, and set minimum levels of protection for workers who become too old or too ill to work?
Right now the answer is we treat all equally when tariffs should be reflect the rules of the game. If a nation doesn't play by the same rules, we will raise the price of their goods until they are playing with the same rule book.
Posted by Mark F on February 22, 2011 at 3:50 pm | permalink |
AMEN!!! Couldn't have said it better Penelope, especially the point about unions being for a day gone by. Look at what they did to the American Auto Industry. I want people to be treated fairly but I want the government to have a balanced budget too. Plus, calling in sick when you are not sick is FRAUD! What are the teachers teaching their students? If I didn't show up for 5 days, that would be job abandonment and I would not have a job to return to. I think the message is loud and clear, we have to stand on our own to feet! It's a cultural problem- in my mind- to some degree. Clearly teachers are not paid what they are worth, but neither are the professional athletes and actors. As a society we place a high value on these professions. Sorry for the rant, but this debate in a very liberal city is not balanced and too many people are keeping quiet about what is really wrong with our country and our values!
Posted by Laura on February 22, 2011 at 3:55 pm | permalink |
P, maybe you should read the facts instead of creating them. Stick to your wrecked life and stay away from real issues. You're not qualified for such discourse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes
Posted by Celine on February 22, 2011 at 5:04 pm | permalink |
What an excellent blog! Thank you for your clear thinking.
Posted by Ethan on February 22, 2011 at 8:04 pm | permalink |
First, those that can't tolerate opinions that differ from their own that want to leave this blog- please GO, I will not miss you.
Second, as a former union steward, those that equate public unions with private unions are missing the point. Private unions and companies compete in commercial marketplace for wages and benefits and public unions do not. Private unions and company representatives negotiate in a competitive market environment. Public unions and politicians don't compete with anyone, there is no risk for either party since there is no danger of the "company" going broke or the bureaucrat losing a job for bad negotiations. Government representatives negotiate with the public union for another party- the taxpayer. The taxpayer is hostage to the agreement they have no way to agree or disagree with but though taxes are required to pay.
The average federal salary is now $77K and the private sector is $44K since in good or bad economies federal employees always get increases since there is no market forces to compete with and taxpayers are looking 14 trillion in debt.
Posted by Mark on February 22, 2011 at 8:07 pm | permalink |
Well said.
Posted by Millie on February 22, 2011 at 10:59 pm | permalink |
Penelope, these people are not necessarily resisting to change in their jobs. They are resistant to losing their freedom of speech.
I am by no means uncritical of unions, but collective bargaining is a human right, recognized by the United Nations through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Unions affirm individual freedom by giving a voice to individual workers when engaging with large institutions. Not every industry needs a union, and not every person needs a union. But when a group of individuals chooses to form an organization promoting their individual rights, they're asserting their voice and their right to negotiate in their common interests.
Posted by Kelly Meeker on February 23, 2011 at 12:46 am | permalink |
Unions are about evening out the power differential in negotiations between those with influence and those without. Nothing else. It's business!
It makes logical sense for individuals to participate in unions rather than to be one voice crying out in the wilderness, seeking not to have one's services/labor/time viewed as a commodity. Not everyone is a high flyer in their field, and "the company" doesn't want everyone to be.
It's a classic struggle, farmers form cooperatives for better pricing and other benefits from their produce, and people form unions for better pricing and benefits from their labor.
Posted by Dale on February 23, 2011 at 6:55 am | permalink |
Great post! I know this is a tough topic, but I thought you made a lot of really great points.
Even for those who are offended or disagree, this issue is important enough for everyone to at least try to give it as much thought as possible. Penelope has simply brought a lot of concerns and great suggestions to the table
Posted by sarah on February 23, 2011 at 9:15 am | permalink |
In my first career I negotiated a lot of contracts. Never, in those 13+ years did I see a party agree to terms that they couldn't afford. They may not have loved the terms (some of these contracts were settlement agreements of matters in litigation), but if financial ruin was going to be the result of the agreement, no one would enter into it.
When it became clear to me that the economics of the practice of law was shifting in a way that made sense for me to move on, I did so. I became a teacher because teaching is a career for which my strengths are well suited. I mention all of this by way of preface because on those matters I see eye-to-eye…and I have "walked the walk"…with respect to the author of this blog. But having actually been there, I believe she is wrong on the underlying issue.
Elimination of public employee collective bargaining rights is a simplistic, one-size-fits-all attempt to avoid facing the basic underlying dynamics of the situation. No government entity has…or ever will…agree to a contract that will lead to financial ruin, any more so than a private party would. To the extent state and local governments face financial difficulty now, that problem is not going to disappear over night by eliminating collective bargaining rights.
This all seems like a classic case of "buyer's remorse." Having made deals in the past that now seem like a bad idea, there's a desire to lash out at the "seller" for having done exactly what any rational person in an arms-length transaction would do: secure the best deal possible. Let government show restraint and wisdom in the future, like any BOD owes to its shareholders. And if the individuals responsible to act with such restraint and wisdom fail to do so, then let them lose their jobs. If they can't cut it when negotiating a contract in a far more advantageous situation than someone in the private sector (most public employees lack the one key negotiating tool private sector employees possess…the right to strike), then get the heck out of the way and let someone who knows what they're doing step in.
Posted by Jim on February 23, 2011 at 10:08 am | permalink |
What irritates me about this post is how glib it is. You're trying to use the situation in Wisconsin as a "news wrapper" to drive some extra traffic for some simplistic "get on with it" career advice. It's cynical and you don't really know what you're talking about on this issue. And, as you can see from all the thoughtful commentary here, this is something that really matters to a lot of people and to the country.
Unsubscribed.
Posted by Gideon Rosenblatt on February 23, 2011 at 10:35 am | permalink |
Penelope, I love your writing. I love the crazy way you throw out a bunch of wildly disparate ideas, add in a bit of yourself, a bit about sex, and almost always manage to tie it together. But this is…not your best stuff. It's only because of the gains of the labor movement that it appears we don't need unions anymore. What do you think would happen if unions and the threat of unions didn't exist anymore? My wife works in HR. I know about the conversations that go on in management about the things they need to do to keep the staff satisfied enough to not want to unionize. And that's no secret. And "There are enough jobs. You can't get a job because you're bad at job hunting,"? Or perhaps because you don't have the time or money to retrain, or to move your family, or you can't because your house is underwater. I still love you, but you have to be careful of the smug sweeping statements.
Posted by Frank on February 23, 2011 at 10:48 am | permalink |
But tenured teachers *can* get fired. There is a whole protocol for it. I believe it needs tweaking certainly, but to just eliminate unions and collective bargaining completely seems insane to me. And I vote republican, usually.
Posted by Caity on February 23, 2011 at 12:39 pm | permalink |
Three things:
1) This is a problem entirely of the governor's creation. There was a budget surplus when the governor was sworn in. He created this deficit by giving tax breaks to large companies.
2) This is about union-busting. Walker pretty much says so to to George Will in the Washington Post.
3) The reason this is about union-busting (as some have said and P responded) is that unions are the only big money players on the democratic side. Republicans have spent the last several decades buying off big business (even at the expense of most people and the world economy), packing the federal bench with really conservative judges, putting Alito, Roberts, and Thomas (whose wife worked for Citizens United and who is a headliner at the yearly political strategy session led by the billionaire Koch brothers) on the Supreme Court. This same Court decided (Citizens United, 2008) to allow all of those big businesses to spend any amount of money influencing elections. We all know money = power in politics. If the only money in politics is big business money, when who will have all the power?
4) Okay, four things. That said, Penelope's advice about individual career choices is right on. I respect the fight of the Wisconsin unions to not have their contracts defaulted on. Changes in how unions operate moving forward are past necessary (Randy Weingarten, I'm looking at you). HOWEVER. If I can't default on my credit card bills, the state of Wisconsin shouldn't be able to default on their contracts either. But it's best to not be in a position to be at the mercy of union protection in this anti-union atmosphere. If a union is the only thing standing between you and vultures who think snow plow operators are attacking this country like 9/11 (Rick Santelli said this on MTP), you are in serious trouble.
Posted by jennifer lynn on February 23, 2011 at 12:41 pm | permalink |
Public employees contribute a significant amount of money from their salary toward their pensions. So should if the pension system is broken shouldn't they keep whatever money they have contributed thus far?
Posted by Leslie on February 23, 2011 at 4:19 pm | permalink |
What currently is happening in Wisconsin, Indiana and elsewhere is only the tip of the iceberg.
Fact: Since 1970, so-called "pensions" have been nothing but deferments of debt. The inability to meet obligations was met be raiding pension funds and placing government IOUs in the coffers instead. Now, finally, the day has come when the draw on those IOUs has surpassed the ability to meet it.
Fact: within 20 years, lots of things will happen. The ability to communicate and exchange value for goods services and labor will be so efficient and targeted that neither unions nor government will be able to keep up with the rate of innovation. They will both be obsolete. By the time the regulators hash through their political 'compromises' and contentious hammering, We The People will have moved past whatever they were trying to control. Unions were good when folks worked in the same factory for 45 years. By the time the last Boomer retires, the average length of time in one position will be somewhere between 1 and 3 years, with contractors comprising at least 50% of what used to be called "white-collar" positions. Manufacturing will become small-scale, local and mostly robotic.
Result: Government-union jobs will eventually simply disappear. Not only will there will be no money for them, they will be no need, and no amount of protest, demonstration, rally or angry screaming will cause any to suddenly reappear. Today, some of us are union-represented, some of us are government-employed and some of us are both. But all of us are taxpayers, and when all of us are told that we have to ante up double what we were paying before so that some of us can hang on to our obsolete, useless and archaic positions, guess who loses?
It's not a judgment call. It's what's going to happen. Nobody in politics currently has the testicles to stand up to the extortionists, so it will eventually have to come to a governor of 50 stepping out to single microphone and saying, "Sorry. We're broke." Two or three elections later, after everybody who's tried to hike taxes to pay for yesterday's news is booted out, the whole thing simply withers and dies.
So . . . scream now, get all pissed and call the other side a whole bunch of dirty, frat-boy epithets, but if you have half-a-brain in your noggin, you'll get off your complacent backsides and join the future.
Posted by RocketSurgeon on February 23, 2011 at 6:05 pm | permalink |
+1 and more.
Posted by Mark W. on February 24, 2011 at 8:31 pm | permalink |
RocketSurgeon: I don't see how (unionized or not) nurses, teachers, fire fighters, police, and some other professionals can be replaced in the way that you are suggesting. There needs to be a reasonable teacher-student ratio; a reasonable nurse-patient ratio; and a certain number of fire fighters and police for a population base. Yes?
Is there some part of your argument that I am misunderstanding?
Certain professions cannot be robotized. Certain jobs are subject to individualized care and attention, and adapting to rapidly changing needs/environment.
Posted by chris Keller on February 25, 2011 at 6:00 am | permalink |
I just discovered this blog and was finding it quite interesting…until I saw this incredibly misplaced post. There has been so much valid rebuttal – on the politicking, the state of public sector employment, etc – that at first I didn't feel the need to post my own. But my view on this subject is a bit different than anything else I've seen posted, so I hope my two cents can add something to the discussion.
My background is history, with a long-running interest in labor history in the United States and around the world. What makes American organized labor rather unique is how UN-political it has been for most of its history. In Europe, organized labor didn't support political parties, it created them as the political wing of a social movement. The British Labor Party, the German Social Democrats, the Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalists; all were the political wing of a union movement. In America, things were the other way around: the Democratic Party took organized labor under its wings in the 1930s and bound the unions to the party's political goals. Organized labor became the servant of American liberalism, not the force behind it that it was in much of the world. Someone above mentioned the "Treaty of Detroit" – that such a document could be called, meaningfully, a "Treaty" reflects the level of governmental power behind it.
Why does this matter? I'm hardly original in calling American unions "Big Labor" (contra "Big Business"), but the Big Labor mentality has everything to do with the sad state of American organized labor. Big Labor acts like Big Business, maximizing its own profits at the expense of employers. This mentality is why, as several people have pointed out, much union bargaining today is over seemingly petty topics that don't effect the quality of the product. Unions as Big Labor need to maintain the status quo just as much as Big Business does. Tension between the two is real, but trivial.
It may sound like I'm anti-union, but that's far from the case. In fact, I believe we need unions now as much as we have at any time in the nation's history. However, to be relevant, unions need to take-up once again the mantle of social change that they dropped in the 1930s. Do you know why Roosevelt acted to protect and institutionalize organized labor withing the confines of the moderate AFL-CIO? It was to eliminate the influence of Communists, who led many of the union drives at the time (see Gastonia, NC, 1935). It was to prevent the re-emergence of the IWW, the legendary Wobblies. It was to end the wildcats and sit-down strikes – does the name Fisher Body Plant ring a bell to anyone? Probably not, as institutionalizing organized labor also meant controlling its story. The bad old days could be memorialized and turned into part of the American narrative (Pullman, Homestead – the great stikes of the 1890s), while more recent events (Lawrence -1912, Ludlow Massacre – 1913, the great steel strike of 1919, etc) could be written out of the narrative. They weren't needed; labor peace had been guaranteed for the future.
It was a great story, and one that people wanted to hear. In fact, people still want to hear it: Since labor peace is settled, why are unions even needed? What role do they play, can they play? The answer comes not from this country, but from Egypt: I saw photos the other day of an Egyptian protester bearing a sign saying "We Support the Teachers in Wisconsin." There is a word for this: solidarity, making common cause across trades, industries, states, and, yes, borders as common people (the working and middle classes) who have common interests and need each other to make sure that those interests are met. I was reduced to tears by those photos. That impoverished people in the midst of revolution see that they have a common cause with those in the most affluent nation in the world says more than any words I can write about the role of organized labor. There are working stiffs everywhere, and they all need to support one another.
That's why we need unions now. They have been among the great agents of change globally, and can continue to do so. I'm in Generation Y, and I, for one, am NOT thrilled by the prospect of unstable employment and the resulting unstable life. Penelope might be right that we are a hopeful and mobile generation, but that doesn't mean that we all share her disinterest in a stable and happy life. The goal of unionization has always been just that: ensuring that all the members of the union have the means to live a good life, and to push for a society built on the same grounds, even in the midst of vast socio-economic changes.
Posted by Brandon on February 23, 2011 at 6:37 pm | permalink |
What I'm getting out of this is that we should expect to have 12-16 hour workdays, 6 day workweeks with no benefits other than lots of money with no time to spend it or go to the doctor. Maybe. No unions? Hello, 19th century. Again.
Posted by Angela DuBois on February 23, 2011 at 8:07 pm | permalink |
What I'm getting out of this is that we should expect to have 12-16 hour workdays, 6 day workweeks with no benefits other than lots of money with no time to spend it or go to the doctor. Maybe. No unions? Hello, 19th century. Again. Oh. And a shortened lifespan from working with no time off or time to visit the doctor.
Posted by Angela DuBois on February 23, 2011 at 8:08 pm | permalink |
Oh, and it's not as if we were given a choice about Social Security withholding. 35 years and you want to tell me "Oh well?" Change with the times?
Thanks, P. Love you.
Posted by Angela DuBois on February 23, 2011 at 11:01 pm | permalink |
Maybe you are just trying to get more hits on your site with this madness, P. Trying to get more people to respond to the chaos going on in Madison. I really hope so.
Unions ARE still necessary, especially for the likes of public employees because we don't make enough money as it is (I work for the Judicial Branch)for the amount of work we do for an understaffed sector, raises have been long gone since years ago, and benefits are dwindling more and more with budget cuts as it is. If the public sector employees don't have any rights to speak out about issues (not only about the quality of their workplace, but the quality of the services they are able to provide, like the way education is imparted to our children – YOUR children?), then we are letting some outsider who has no clue of day to day goings on call the shots. You really want some clown who is more influenced by how little spending goes on to make calls on how your children's school is ran? I'd much rather have the teachers and administrators who are actually working everyday IN that sector to have a voice on how things are carried out, what problems REALLY need to be dealt with, not just some guy who only looks at dollars and cents.
We are putting too high of a value on money over the quality of life. I have worked both private sector AND public sector, and I choose to stay in the public sector because the private sector is too damn shakey and "at will" termination is ridiculous – you can be fired for little or nothing and have no recourse for it. In public sector, you at least get some investigating done. If someone wants you out without validity, they'd have to do a damn good job of making things look bad for you. Private sector people fire you because they just don't like you and call it "didn't work well with the team", which could mean subconsciously that they aren't attracted to Muslim people or lesbians or whatever they found out about you that didn't sit well. It DOES happen too often in private sector and I wish there were more unions to protect people from that garbage. I sure as hell don't work for the public sector because the pay is so amazing and I get a few extra holidays. Let me tell you, sweetie, public sector employees have to work DAMN hard because there aren't enough of us, no one respects us, and the opportunities to really make money aren't there. But we have a sense of community with one another that is unparalleled in the private sector. Our bargaining rights is the one thing private sector employees DO have that keeps them going. Taking away their ability to have a say-so in how their workplace conducts business is nothing but wrong, it perpetuates hierarchy rather than equality and there is NOTHING good that is going to come from that. Those big CEOs and executives on top need to stop hogging all the money and start paying out what they've been robbing from everyone else. But cutting the little bit these middle classmen have so some fat cat can have an extra pile of money to sit on? How do you possibly concede to that?
Posted by Kimberly C. on February 23, 2011 at 11:25 pm | permalink |
Hey, somethings gotta give. All of us do. All of us will. We are staring at the end of the world as we knew it. The life we lived and led, the structured finance guy, the teacher, the government workers…This is about a new era…re-inventing yourself and your career. We are a culture of people who are used to "having jobs". We are all going to have to re jigger the sails because the winds of change are blowing. A dictator can be overthrown by facebook. The good people of Wisconson feel strongly enough about "collective bargaining" to protest.
The politicians are all still playing the get back at you games. I'm sick of this. The president asks a panel to come up with some ideas about how to reduce the deficit and create a balanced budget. These guys couldn't agree and come to a conclusion. Would someone please tell them that an iceberg just ripped a hole in the hull about 50 feet below the water line and we are taking on water fast. I guess they are too busy trying to see who gets to sit next to each other at dinner. Will they notice before their feet get wet?
Where is our Facebook revolution?
Posted by participant on February 23, 2011 at 11:44 pm | permalink |
I think unions are useful in protecting employees from management. If management is allowed to operate without any checks and balances they will abuse their power and get rid of competent employees just to save money. That is not right. People have families to support. They are humans like everybody else. A union can prevent a competent employee from getting fired without cause.
Posted by Michael Treadwell on February 24, 2011 at 6:14 am | permalink |
Get a life… and stand up and fight for democracy…
I got a gift for you… your fired.
Posted by JD on February 24, 2011 at 9:42 am | permalink |
With benefits the average teacher in Wisconsin gets $89,000 the average private sector worker, who pays for the npublic sector retirement, health care etc. gets $61,000 again with benefits. The private sector worker cannot retire at 55, my full retirment age is 66 2/3 for example but teachers retire at 55. The teacher which 100 fewer days per year than the private sector worker. I can go on and on but the bottom line is public sector workers, teachers in this example, do have a better deal than we can afford to give them and a far better deal than private sector. Adjusting to a reasonable compensation plan is saving the teaching profession. Refusing to adjust and firing young teachers (becasue of tenure) will kill the profession. Stop lisening to the Democrats and Republicans and just think for yourself then you will see this is a financial issue not a human rights issue.
Posted by Mike on February 25, 2011 at 4:42 am | permalink |
"Instead of lamenting that your job is changing for the worst, find out what new jobs are emerging because of the change, and make a change yourself."
Right, because we'll all be better off if there are no teachers. ;/
Posted by Tzipporah on February 25, 2011 at 12:25 pm | permalink |
Interesting – but fact checking and a bit of current event study seem in order. Wisconsin's schools are the SECOND best performing in the country. No longer need unions – a bill has been introduced in Missouri to abolish existing child labor laws. It's interesting how everyone but the racers understand the race to the bottom
Posted by Ron on February 26, 2011 at 10:15 am | permalink |
My fellow architects marvel at the gilded life of the public-sector employee – w/typical wages rates, benefits, pensions, work-rules, health care plans, etc which ALL exceed comparable private-sector job-description positions when compared "apples to apples". Then add the pervasive public sector "perks" of "don't be working that hard" and "don't you be disrespecting me" expectations for those employees (at least here in Chicago). Those public-sector employees, teachers included, have no clue how exceptionally good their "employment-package" situations remains, and the namby-pamby complaints are falling on deaf ears of tax-payers.
Read recently in NYT: "Public-sector employees don't need unions, because their employment situations don't involve adverse employers seeking to exploit them. Tax-payers are the employers. The public-sector unions are negotiating with career public-sector administrators and politicians who have NO interest (heretofore) in prudent financial management and thus provided financial appeasement to the public-sectors unions. Public-sector union "negotiations" have long been a joke, given mandatory wage increases based on formulas and not performance or budget constraints, expectations of annual raises, zero tolerance for significant employee contributions to health insurance and pensions, little job-performance quality control. Illinois and Wisconsin, and most other states, many other cities and towns, face serious financial crises. At least Wisconsin's governor is willing to face the angry mob of state employees; Illinois' governor wants to float another monster bond to fund the budget gap in addition to raising effective income taxes by 70% (in addition to our 10.25% sales tax here in Cook County).
Go Penelope!
Posted by Architect on February 26, 2011 at 5:22 pm | permalink |
Apples to apples public sector employees make 20% less adjust for benefits and it is 7% less.
Those numbers are skewed because among employees with less than a college degree, public sector have surpassed their private sector counter-parts. The gap is created by those with a college degree or more.
Posted by Mark Ferguson on February 27, 2011 at 7:26 pm | permalink |
As further comment, I've pasted an excerpt from the excellent education blog http://www.illinoisloop.org:
The 100 highest-paid school administrators in Illinois in 2006 had salaries ranging from $205,590 to $380,227. Here are the 17 who made more than a quarter million dollars for the year:
Superintendents'
Quarter-Million Dollar Club
Administrator Salary District
Catalani Gary T $380,227 CUSD 200
Bangser Henry S $356,500 NEW TRIER TWP HSD 203
Curley Mary M $321,149 HINSDALE CCSD 181
Kelly Dennis G $317,226 LYONS TWP HSD 204
Marks Linda R $316,874 GOLF ESD 67
Kanold Timothy D $292,938 ADLAI E STEVENSON HSD 125
Codell Neil C $286,208 NILES TWP CHSD 219
Bultinck Howard J $285,137 SUNSET RIDGE SD 29
Hager Maureen L $279,767 NORTH SHORE SD 112
Murray Laura L $279,397 HOMEWOOD FLOSSMOOR CHSD 233
Burns Kevin G $277,927 CHSD 218
Torchedlo Thomas A $266,478 WHEELING CCSD 21
Van Der Bogert Rebecca $265,922 WINNETKA SD 36
Radakovich Michael L $261,451 AURORA EAST USD 131
Fleming Larry K $259,878 LINCOLNSHIRE-PRAIRIEVIEW SD 103
Alson Allan L $258,876 EVANSTON TWP HSD 202
Wolf Boyce J $256,380 ROCK FALLS TWP HSD 301
Click here for FTN's list of the highest-paid administrators in Illinois.
Posted by Architect on February 26, 2011 at 5:32 pm | permalink |
Wow .. I really don't agree witth you at all about this.
According to Professor Harley Shaiken of the University of California-Berkeley,[1] unions are associated with higher productivity, lower employee turnover, improved workplace communication, and a better-trained workforce.
Prof. Shaiken is not alone. There is a substantial amount of academic literature on the following benefits of unions and unionization to employers and the economy:
Economic Growth
Productivity
Competitiveness
Product or service delivery and quality
Training
Turnover
Solvency of the firm
Workplace health and safety
Economic development
More: http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff8.cfm
Posted by Nancy VanReece on February 27, 2011 at 10:10 am | permalink |
In your introduction, you say "but the issue in Wisconsin is more fundamental than pro-labor or anti-labor." And then your first sentence of your talking points is "we don't need unions anymore."
There's nothing else I need to say about this post.
Posted by Sam on February 27, 2011 at 3:40 pm | permalink |
This post, coming less than a week after your "argument for paying moms less," made me so mad I had to wait a week to post here. And this is coming from someone who generally likes your ideas and reads your blog voluntarily.
Seriously? "HEY POT!" "HEY KETTLE!" "I brought beer!" It's a hypocrisy party in here. No one argues for fighting for your right to work towards a flexible schedule, get some say in what you do and how you do it, etc. like you do. This is what unions do for teachers in a field controlled by officials who really do see all teachers as interchangeable widgets.
I know you sometimes have issues with
So let's your points, shall we?
"1. Recognize when you're in a dead sector, and shift."
What is DEAD about teaching? You have children, don't you? Your neighbors have children, some of your friends have children…? Not every parent can or should home-school their children, so public school it is. I went into teaching because I liked it, but also because two other private sector jobs had just disappeared in 5 years- not just my job, but the entire industries I was working in. But in subbing, I discovered I actually like working with unpredictable little kids and pre-teens over adults every day.
For that matter, there is nothing dead about janitors or street sweepers or any other workers, you still generate trash and you hired a house manager to keep it under control.
"2. Create stability for yourself with new career tools."
Many people are TRAPPED in teaching. The pension is a trade-off for poor pay while working on the job. And it is poor pay, if teachers were paid according to the level of education that is required of them, plus ongoing professional development, etc. they would get paid like doctors and lawyers. The public would pay teachers nothing if they could.
But here's the thing… you can pay into SS, or into the state employee's retirement system. And at retirement age, you can collect EITHER, but not both. So if you work half your life as a teacher, and half for a private company doing whatever you do… you can collect retirement for one or the other, which means, you have HALF the retirement available to you for the same number of years of work as your peers. I am not making an argument for or against the pension system, I'm just saying that teachers ARE doing everything they can to better themselves in their profession, but if you jump ship and leave teaching, you could have nothing at retirement. This is also why people who might be great at teaching but are doing something else stay away. You work for low pay as a teacher in exchange for a pension (and in CA, they pay into it just like other employees pay into a 401k), and if you don't get either…. then you shoot yourself in the foot in the end… is that worth it for kids?
"3. Stop focusing on the meta. Just fix your life."
How is this relevant to anything that is going on right now? Unless you are saying all teachers should just quit and go do something else and abandon all students. Teachers aren't necessarily unhappy with their profession, they take the education of today's students and tomorrow's workforce very seriously. They are unhappy with their pay, with their working conditions, and with the continuous perception of the media that they are widgets and failures when they can't solve every ill.
"4. Stop picking jobs based on long-term benefits."
When teachers are paid a competitive wage for their level of education and experience, other benefits may not be so important. Given what they work for everywhere, the fact that they don't qualify for a condo loan in most communities where they work, what exactly do you- a person with some power to make people listen- going to do about the issue of the underpaid state workers like teachers? Are you going to offer them a 30K a year raise each to match the private sector in exchange for that reduction in pension benefits when they retire? I thought not.
"5. Getting fired is a gift."
Getting fired is a gift if you hate your job. If you love your job, if you devote countless unpaid hours to your job, and if getting laid off means the loss of your retirement, not just your employment, there is no GIFT in that. I've lost a few jobs in my career after college. When I lost my job as a music teacher due to budget cuts, it was no gift to me, and no gift to the 700+ student the age of your boys that no longer get music instruction of any kind at school.
Has it occurred to you that the reason Wisconsin schools fare poorly is not because the teachers suck, but because all aspects of the educational system are vastly underfunded, in particular, IDEA and IDA mandates that provide for all students individual needs, including Aspergers? No, you probably haven't, and neither has anyone else. The public schools in this country have been underfunded so long that there really isn't anything left to cut.
"6. Change is exciting. It opens new doors."
Teacher work hard now, and they pay into their retirement for later. They didn't make this mess… in fact, until Scott Walker decided to create a bunch of tax cuts, Wisconsin didn't even HAVE a problem meeting these obligations. Really, your whole post, when compared to the life you have lived, makes you come off as privileged indeed, and unable to relate to someone like me. Makes it harder to take your career advice now. Stick to what you know- private industry- ok?
Posted by Pamzella on February 27, 2011 at 10:56 pm | permalink |
Hi Penelope-I've been a big fan and have appreciated your thoughtful, honest posts throughout the years.
However…this one shows a lot of ignorance, lack of empathy and seems to primary benefit your business (and perhaps your ego).
I don't believe that the problem is our workers & unions, as much as it is our government doing the bidding of its true electorate, i.e., big business.
Until there are more acts of peaceful civil disobedience, this won't change. I applaud the protesters and will be calling Ian's to place a pizza order today.
Posted by Trista Meehan on February 28, 2011 at 6:08 am | permalink |
Getting fired is not a gift. I understand that society as a whole must pay the social cost when the economy shifts. But families being homeless, children being hungry, women dying of cancer because they have no health insurance… that's not a gift. For smart, mobile people with good resources (money in the bank, good social skills, good health) – yeah, maybe it helps them get off their butts and pursue a new dream.
I live in Chicago, where folks are on welfare, kids are in gangs, and it's not very common to have someone excel in school, go to college, and enter the middle class. Sure, they're "bad" at interviewing. And they're "bad" at a lot of stuff. Every day, they put on their Burger King uniform – or pick up their bucket and head off to clean houses – to bring home $8 an hour. They're not worthless, throw-away people. We can't all move to a farm and pet baby goats.
And in the case of Wisconsin – this governor has a history of "privatizing" public services and lining the pockets of the already rich. Be a little cynical about politics, would you, Penelope? You're plenty cynical about everything else.
Posted by Karen Burgess on February 28, 2011 at 12:33 pm | permalink |
A union worker, a Tea Partier, and a CEO are sitting around a table with a plate of 12 cookies on it. The CEO takes 11 cookies, and then says to the Tea Partier, "Watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."
Penelope is the CEO.
Posted by Karen on February 28, 2011 at 5:53 pm | permalink |
Toasts half a cookie to Karen…
Posted by Pamzella on March 1, 2011 at 2:14 am | permalink |
Unions were instrumental in ending horrendous legal and economic exploitation of workers that used to be commonplace. But with the advent of modern labor laws (and MUCH expanded government oversight of those laws), the need for collective bargaining is gone. Yes, it is scary to stand on your own, judged and compensated based on your contributions alone, but that is the only way to ensure that we have the most qualified person in the job. For my kids, I want the best teacher we can find in their classroom, not a bad teacher that we can't fire because s/he happens to be in a union in with a bunch of other really great teachers. How can this be ensured under the current union regime?
Posted by Jennifer on February 28, 2011 at 6:49 pm | permalink |
An interesting way to look at unions — one that makes me think. Issues of unions need to be discussed and some if not many of the givens their members have taken for granted will need to be reconsidered in the changing economy. I don't think the approach Walker is taking is doing anything towards advancing that and only forcing his face into the national spotlight.
I was surprised by your comment that there 'are enough jobs' in our current economy – in fact I found it all but impossible to believe considering the unemployment rate.
So I followed your link and was disappointed that it led to an article (by you!) that did nothing to prove your point. Do you have data to support what you are saying? I'd love to see it.
Posted by Kate on February 28, 2011 at 9:25 pm | permalink |
Last night on public television, I watched part of Triangle Fire, on the 100th anniversary of the strike and return to work of the shirtwaist workers in New York.
This is a story of 20,000 seamstresses striking for months to establish a union for its workers. Issues were pay, hours, and health and safety conditions in the garment district. At the end of the long job action, most workers won and the shops became union shops. (It took the patronage of a high-society woman to stop the police brutality on the picket lines and draw media sympathy to the marching female workers.)
All but Triangle became unionized. One month later, in March, a fire broke out, and all the workers on the 9th floor were trapped–the exit door was locked. A few of the 200-odd workers got out via the elevator before it became non-functional. The rest jumped into the elevator shaft or jumped from the window ledges or burned alive. I think the final death count was 150-some.
Police who had beaten these women when they were protesting and marching a few months earlier, were now sorting through the bodies, 3 deep, on the pavement, and taking them to the mass morgue for identification. Chilling.
The owners of Triangle got an insurance settlement and disappeared into obscurity. They were not convicted of anything illegal. Triangle was the ONLY shop where the workers did not succeed in establishing a union. Their bosses conceded wage and hours benefits, so the women returned to work; but the other issues were not remedied.
If you want to see Triangle Fire for yourself, it is available from PBS.
Posted by chris Keller on March 1, 2011 at 5:06 am | permalink |
Brilliant post. I truly agree with you.
Create your own destiny !!
Posted by Eric Antariksa on March 2, 2011 at 1:49 am | permalink |
Other people have said it better than I can, but this is a mess of a post. Among several logical and factual errors, it equates not wanting to lose the right to bargain with not wanting to work hard, it misstates the governor's position, it fails to acknowledge that unions already conceded wage benefits, and it falsely assumes that "someone will always pay you" when in fact, as the union-free Alabama and South Carolina can attest, "someone" will only ever pay the market rate, no matter how good you are, and lower wages for some results in lower wages for all.
You were unwise to post this. Your points are shallow, facile, and wrong.
Posted by Liz on March 2, 2011 at 3:46 pm | permalink |
I will continue to read this site, but Penelope *nearly* lost me here.
What angered us all here is something that I haven't seen addressed yet in my skimming of the comments: This post reeks of the kind of self-justifying, disingenuous positive thinking that makes us cringe.
I recently read the book "Bright-Sided" by Barbara Ehrenreich, and, while it is slightly overly-negative in parts, it points out some essential truths. One of them is that much of the career-related advice out there comes not from successful people's desire to help the less successful, but from successful people's desire to justify their own successes while justifying others' failures.
I do believe that collective bargaining rights are a privelege, but I also believe that Gov. Walker must be stopped because, if he wins this one, we will see MUCH worse changes that lower the status of America's middle class while blaming them for problems that were caused by the rich. Penelope is correct that younger workers must learn from this and not count on future benefits, but she appears to be willfully ignorant of the bigger issues at hand. Penelope is skilled and hard-working but ALSO lucky.
People will go to great lengths to avoid facing how little of their lives are actually out of their control. At her best, Penelope is excellent at focusing on what we DO have control over, and what we can do to take advantage of that. But to say that the whole Wisconsin-union issue is just and that all those teachers need is to "adapt" and "market themselves" is just delusional. She might as well be preaching quantum physics while channeling Atlantean spirits.
Posted by Ben on March 4, 2011 at 6:19 pm | permalink |
I wrote that in haste and want to revise a few parts.
By "…while blaming them for problems that were caused by the rich," I meant "…while MAKING THEM PAY for problems that were caused by the rich."
By "the whole Wisconsin-union issue is just…" I meant "Governor Walker's actions are just."
Posted by Ben on March 4, 2011 at 6:22 pm | permalink |
I already posted this once, but I think it's very important and educational so I'm going to post it again. It's an interview with a successful businessman who saw the world changing, saw his current business declining, and did exactly what he needed to do in order to stay afloat.
His name is Bernie Madoff.
http://nymag.com/news/features/berniemadoff-2011-3/
Posted by Ben on March 5, 2011 at 5:21 pm | permalink |
I'm taking a chill pill to keep my head from exploding as I'm trying to digest Ms. Trunk's typical conservative talking point blather. The hubris and arrogance of her argument seems to know no bounds. One has to ask if her smoke and mirrors advice(i.e., creating a problem that she can fix or create a career out of advising others to create careers, brilliant BTW) is directed to the rank and file worker or upper level professionals or management. I hope to interject a sense of reality.
1. Recognize when you're in a dead sector, and shift.
A case for unions. They are democratic institutions; don't like the leadership vote them out, (much like politicians). Tell me how easy it for shareholders to vote out company officers. Unions have been responsible for the setting the benchmark on wages and incomes, thus keeping our country from slipping into a Dickens like society, (Please sir, may I have some more?). Unions keep the middle class strong. Without the middle class there is no wealth to a nation, just haves and have nots. Instead of putting your energy into "reacting to a shifting job market" why not put time and effort into supporting changes to arcane trade policy of Nafta, Cafta and the WTO, (see Ross Perot âgiant sucking sound' http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DRkgx1C_S6ls&rct=j&sa=X&ei=oO5zTZuOB4yusAObsI3ICw&ved=0CDMQuAIwAg&q=giant+sucking+sound+%2B+ross+perot&usg=AFQjCNEXkCQ-bwYB1syEcXj3uGdJE8WoLw ). With more careers not ending up overseas, think of the increase in clients you would have. Win-Win. Until multi-nationals stop their hell-bent plan to drive wages to the bottom we will need unions.
2. Create stability for yourself with new career goals.
One reason there is a lack of stability in the workforce is your acceptance of multi-national globalization. A public company has to make a profit. It's their fiduciary responsibility. Thus companies are not loyal to the US, they are not patriotic and their involvement in the commons is nil unless they see a financial reason. It's all about the bottom line. Yet they want to privatize the profits but socialize the losses. So if they cannot get the wages down in this country they will do more with less with a reduced workforce. I ask again, where are your clients going to work? I get why you are pushing entrepreneurship, but consider this. If 26% of this countries students go on to secondary education and even less graduate with management training how do you expect the rest of the working force to become instant entrepreneurs? Unless your goal is the upper 15% of âprofessional' people in this country you career advice is falling on deaf ears, which goes back to my rank and file question, and thus the relevancy of unions.
3. Stop focusing on the meta. Just fix your life.
Here is where your hubris and arrogance really kick in. First of all, there ARE not enough jobs silly. Second of all, 5 people are chasing 1 job. Yet you find the time to insult the workforce that was laid off to no fault of their own. I can hear this crap on Rush Limbaugh, but I should not have to hear it from a career consoler. You're the one suggesting blame. Folks aren't blaming anyone they just want to work.
4. Stop picking jobs based on long term benefits.
Only if you're in upper level management or work for Wall St. I f you don't fall into that category, sorry, you don't deserve a retirement. Fend for yourselves. Pensions are just delayed salary payment that the workers contribute to. Taxpayers do not, I repeat do not, contribute to pension funds. We as a public buy the services of school teachers, fireman, and police officers and yes DMV workers and they contribute to their pensions. BTW, pensioners reduce the load on Social Security because they get a pension instead of Social Security. âReneging' on these payments is tantamount to theft. Not only is the state pension fund in Wisconsin 98% funded, it was never the source of deficit shortfalls. So Walker wants to steal the pension fund to balance a budget that was not in trouble until he came to officeâ¦. Nice!
5. Getting fired is a gift.
I don't know what planet you're from, but that twisted logic is â¦well â¦twisted. Enough said. Wow!
6. Change is exciting. It opens new doors.
There you go again with the blame thing. I will agree change can be exciting, but if you are worried about putting food on the table or paying rent/mortgage one would probably go for the stability of a boring job. Where are all the jobs Republicans are talking about creating. Every time we turn around they are talking about laying off workers or creating a very tough environment for hiring.
I don't know where the seed capital is going to come from for all these entrepreneurs you are talking about. I own my own firm and I cannot get a loan. (Incidentally my name is Ian; no affiliation to Ian's Pizza). I just don't know why conservatives keep beating a dead horse in a winner take all, race to the bottom in wages society. As hard as it is to realize, most of you will not reach the upper 3% of the wealthy. Thus the definition of 3%. My advice⦠quit voting and supporting ideas against your best interests, and join or form a union.
Posted by Ian Epley on March 6, 2011 at 4:28 pm | permalink |
Wow. It is amazing how many issues seem to be conflated in this post.
1. What is going on in Wisconsin is unique in many ways. More than a little of it is bare knuckled politics searching for some sort of moral justification.
2. Although it has been stated, Public Employee Unions are fundamentally different than private sector unions.
3. Unfunded and unaccounted for public employee benefits are a problem that needs to be addressed irrespective of one's feelings about unions. First, it would help immensely if we got the accounting right. 3 or 4 trillion is a lot of money, but it can be solved over a period of years with the implementation of directionally correct policies and procedures.
4 The issue of unfunded long term benefits for public employees will be settled one way or another. I would suggest that the private sector approach of shifting to defined contribution plans for new employees, with a transition for current workers makes sense.
5. Alternatives that include union busting or a bankruptcy like solution to the benefit problem seem like worse options. However, economics will dictate a solution.
6. A huge chunk of the problem involves health benefits. This can and must be addressed on a national level for everyone. That is, the real long term liability problem is unfunded health costs, and the only solution is reform/restructuring of our ultra expensive health care system.
7. Industrial unions — like Steel — were busted by the economics of the business and couldn't be saved by the political process. The Bethlehem Steel Plant @ Sparrows Point — at one time, the largest in the US is now owned by the Russian steel maker, Severstal. Stalin would turn over in his grave. This was only after BS was wiped out in bankruptcy as well as its Union benefits.
8. Public sector employees are not immune from the same underlying forces as the once mighty Steel unions.
Posted by Tom on March 7, 2011 at 2:07 am | permalink |
when the state workers have less money they won't eat lunch at Ian's. bye bye Ian's. it's every man for him self said the elephant. as he danced amongst the chickens.
Posted by fred on March 7, 2011 at 11:42 am | permalink |
A very small point, but the demographics in France are much, much better than the demographics in Japan, Italy, or Germany, and closer to the countries in the Middle East than the (non-Nordic) countries of Europe, by which I mean that the fertility rate in France is around replacement and has been for some time.
Posted by Mark on March 11, 2011 at 8:52 am | permalink |
Hey Penelope! Just what we need! Another opinion about unions issued by a person who has never been in one. Good thing most teachers don't have the attitude about their careers that you do, otherwise we'd all jump ship and then where will the future of our schools be? We refuse to abandon them because we care too much.
The fact is that unions do a lot of good things for public education and yes, your kids. Are they perfect? No. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
Read more:
http://appleadayproject.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/monday-mythbust-myth-1-unions-only-benefit-teachers/
Posted by Apple A Day on March 14, 2011 at 7:18 pm | permalink |
I am shocked by the number of people who think that Penelope's comments are political. I found her comments to be refreshing in that she didn't mention democrats and republicans, liberals or conseratives, left or right but rather gave commen sense reasons regarding the state of our economy and why unions our out of date. Teachers work for tax payers not big corporations. Also there are at least five (and probably more) teachers or people who work for the school district who live in my neighborhood and I would really like to know why I have to pay for their retirment when I am required to contribute toward my own retirement and can barely afford to pay for my own. Also one person wrote that people in the private sector make more money than government employees. However when you factor in the benefits that governement employees are paid they make significantly more that those in the private sector. The fight in Wisconsin is not Corporate America against unions it is the tax payers against the unions. Also I believe the politicans in this country want us to be divided (Democrats vs Republicans) because it gives them more power. Most of us agree that we want our government to be fiscally responsibe and spend our tax dollars more wisely. We should all join forces to get this message across to our govermentm officals, democrat or republican.
Posted by Gretchen McLaughlin on March 21, 2011 at 10:31 am | permalink |
Gretchen, you aren't working with real facts.
There are multiple studies that look at the issue of total public sector compensation (pay + benefits).
To find public sector compensation is greater than private you have to compare all private sector to all public sector without accounting for the differences in jobs. Government offers few jobs sweeping floors or pushing a button with the picture of what you wish to purchase.
Government is the largest employer of doctors, lawyers, engineers and scientists. When you compare based on comporable qualifications required government pays 20% less than the private sector in the professional fields (and even then is skewed because many government positions require multiple years of experience to be eligible to apply).
If you do across the board comparison job for job, the pay differential is 7% because the public sector does pay those with no degree required more than similar private sector positions (as much as you can compare a police officer or fire fighter to private sector).
The conservative Heritage Foundation has pointed out this differential and opposes across the board pay freezes because they recognize that low compensation is an issue in the professional fields.
The free market is already strongly at play. While Americans are snarling about over-paid teachers, the data shows that it is becoming harder and harder to attract college students into teaching. Numerous studies show that fewer top college students are going into teaching and more and more of the teaching ranks are being filled with students who are in the bottom third of their freshman class.
If we believe that the free market works in the labor market we have little choice but to look at who is entering the teacher labor pool and conclude that the pay and benefits are insufficient to attract not just top candidates, but insufficient to attract the median college student and those just below the median.
I know two high level government lawyers who walked away from $165,000 a year jobs because the pay was so far below their private sector choices. I asked the two doctors in my family why they didn't consider jobs with the VA and they laughed and said they would make more in 10 years of private practice than working to retirement in the VA system. One of them calls the VA the place for doctors for whom English is an occasional language.
This is the reality of the system. Yes the public sector is paying non-college educated low experience workers more than the private sector but we are developing a real crisis in who we can attract to educate our children, design our bridges, care for our veterans and defend challenges to our laws.
Posted by Mark F on March 21, 2011 at 10:55 am | permalink |
Unions today need major reform (I speak of teacher unions of which I am a part of.) However, I do not agree with extinguishing them altogether because they can be tools to balance the misuse of power and guide uninformed politicians in the right direction to make education more equitable for all (We are still far from reaching that goal). Yes, unions served a different purpose in the past and many changes have occurred in the labor conditions that do not necessitate their continuous involvement today. However, better working conditions still do not exist for everyone. There are places across the country that have dilapidated and run down schools that are less than ideal for learning and working. I think the focus of teacher unions needs to return to ensuring that ALL schools in America are safe for students and staff before thinking of raising anyone's salaries. Yes, there are teachers out there who work other jobs besides teaching because their paychecks aren't sufficient to make ends meet. That also isn't fair when compared to all the demands that are placed on teachers today to raise student scores. I believe a teacher should only have one job ( If any teacher isn't taking work home with them at the end of the teacher work day then they are probably mediocre or really know what they are doing). In summary, education still needs major reform and ideally unions should represent the voice of educators to reach a more logical goal than 100% proficiency for all. We live in a country where freedom is an illusion and taking away union rights only brings us "Scarily" closer to reality. If your blog or website were to be shut down or restricted in what you could post on it would that offend you?
Posted by Wendy on March 21, 2011 at 10:47 pm | permalink |
@ mysticaltyger:
Bingo! I have heard this phrased almost exactly the same from someone who lived in Denmark and in Greenland. I think that is also a value in some Asian societies–that is, making the common good a priority as opposed to individualism as top priority.
And perhaps this belief in individualism is more influential than we know. Maybe more influential in the current struggle than liberal v conservative; and more influential than Democratic v Republican.
I also think that such fierce individualism has led to the ruthless competitiveness and the incivility. It has led to deep feelings of entitlement in many if not all sectors. It has led to acting like spoiled children: what's mine is mine!! Both the Dems and Republicans, the conservatives and liberals, and in this case the unions AND the Republican majority, behave this way.
Posted by chris Keller on March 28, 2011 at 6:18 am | permalink |
Wow, I don't know where to begin on this one. It is of a piece with the theory that employees will control their careers and will job-hop as opportunities arise, and employers will pursue these valuable people with attractive offers. It may at one time have applied to a few highly qualified specialists, but it was always a fantasy with regard to rank-and-file workers in industry or government, and few if any employees of any kind have been in that kind of situation over the past two or three years. For those who are not in unions, and whose situation does not offer them the opportunity to play employers against each other–and that's most of us–employers dictate the terms, and as businesses consolidate and monopolies grow, employees suffer the consequences. That's just what we've seen over the past 30 years as unions weaken, wages stagnate, and benefits decrease. This is part of the "war on the middle class," which is moving us to a society in which there are a few wealthy individuals and corporations that run things, a large number of poor who are struggling simply to keep their heads above water, and a tiny middle class. That type of society is called an oligarchy. You can read about it in Charles Dickens.
If unions have ceased to have a function, employees will refuse to join them or will vote them out. To try to legislate them out of existence on ideological grounds is just wrong. To claim that "unions wield insane powers" is, well, insane. Union membership has been decreasing for decades; partly because there are fewer manufacturing
jobs as automation and outsourcing dominate the economy (a problem in itself), partly because there are more professional and service employees who traditionally are not unionized, but also because of very successful union-busting.
Trunk can try to persuade people to look for different jobs that don't offer security or benefits, telling them that their current jobs have no future, but that is an entirely different matter from trying to legislate less security and fewer benefits for existing jobs. She apparently believes that this will help move us more quickly towards the kind of economy she envisions. Not everybody believes that that transition is inevitable, or even desirable.
Referencing her own article that "there are enough jobs" is another fantasy. She cites no statistics, because she can't; it's just a blatant assertion, and it's wrong. At this point there are four or five times as many people looking for jobs as there are job openings. I might also point out that another of her links, http://www.alternet.org/story/23533/,
doesn't say that unions are unnecessary but that they need to be reinvented, which is certainly a tenable position.
Trunk seems to be a libertarian, which is fine, and she quotes her brother who got his economics PhD from the University of Chicago, home of Milton Friedman and the conservative Chicago School (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics), which is also fine, but don't confuse these ideas with anything that has (or deserves) general acceptance. For a very different viewpoint from a Nobel-Prize-winning economist, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21krugman.html
Posted by Merlin Dorfman on March 28, 2011 at 10:35 am | permalink |
Summer is Ecco season across the world!
Ecco shoes natural motion technology supports these natural systems encouraging muscles and ligaments to strengthen whist encouraging runners to develop a more natural.The Ecco collection is made of Yak leather, http://www.eccodress.com
has a water repellent coating called ion-mask, has removable insoles for added comfort, has an anatomical shank system which stabilizes the foot without limiting the natural torsion and many many more features.
Ecco shoes collection is broken down into ecco golf, ecco terra and ecco sandals Run- which has sub categories of ecco A, B, and C dependent on individual fitness. See http://www.eccodress.com for more details to our page.
Posted by Ecco Casual on April 12, 2011 at 8:15 am | permalink |
Since when is being a teacher a dead end job with no future? This author had no idea what she was writing about. The protests in Wisconsin had to do with public sector employees including teachers. Are children supposed to teach themselves? Are teachers not to expect any benefits? Unions are not dead. They are vital to the working world and this article is stupid and pointless.
Posted by Ccillinois2000 on September 28, 2011 at 10:49 pm | permalink |
I love your blog. Then I came to this article/post where I have to disagree with you. Though change is exciting, I have to tell you that breaking up all unions would be redoing all the striking and protesting it took to get unions into the workplace all over if we get rid of them now or soon. Why? Because business takes advantage of every profit making ability it can. It's the nature of business, money, and competition. I think the way workers and companies negotiate isn't completely fair. Sometimes one or the other benefits. And, If you look at the distribution of wealth in the United States, you will find the majority of wealth is held by a very small percentage already. So is the goal of breaking up all the unions is to increase the ratio of wealthy people to the average of the other 99.9% of people — for the benefit of most people? To be in a union is a priveledge and the benefits unions obtain are often cushy. Though those benefits are proportional to the additional profits business enterprises take in. And where would business be without qualified workers? Sure union are known to protect unqualified people on occasion, but there can be remedies to that amenity of being unqualified and protected. I'm sure if all people didn't have to worry about not having health insurance or a retirement income, there wouldn't be people hanging on the jobs they hate and which they are unqualified for. Bootstraps is one thing, but the overall system is a dysfunctional mess created by proponents and advocates of both sides, pro-business and pro-worker, to draw out equity
or comfort .
It easy to say don't be a lazy slob or get another job etc when you don't have to worry about having healthcare, rent, mortgage, etc, especially because it's our slavish work ethic. Just because you tell yourself I've pulled myself up by the bootstraps and look at me now, doesn't mean that's what actually happened.
Posted by James on October 14, 2011 at 9:49 pm | permalink |
I hadn't read this blog in almost a year. I visited it today and this post came up. Then I remembered why I unsubscribed. It's hard to take advice seriously when the person who dispenses it seems to have such a reactionary, Hobbesian worldview at heart.
Posted by Ben on December 12, 2011 at 8:33 am | permalink |
Maybe Hobbesian's not the right word. Hobbes was more of a cynic- not quite a fascist. Penelope doesn't say it, but she implies that her ideal world is one where top candidates compete for good jobs while being held up by an underclass of slaves.
Posted by Ben on December 12, 2011 at 8:48 am | permalink |
advertising and *********** with Adwords. Well I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and can glance out for much more of your respective interesting content. Make sure you update this again very soon..
Posted by peace, love, emphaty on December 27, 2011 at 9:48 am | permalink |
I have been surfing online greater than 3 hours today, yet I never found any attention-grabbing article like yours. It is lovely value enough for me. Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you probably did, the web will likely be a lot more helpful than ever before.
Posted by career interest survey on January 4, 2012 at 7:21 pm | permalink |