[The following is a bit of a retro piece but I feel that is serves as a good example of how things are blown out of proportion by political operatives in the Democratic and Republican Parties and in the media. Also, Labor Day is approaching which seems like a good time to discuss labor issues.]
The Scott Walker recall is another one of those issues that
just begs a response because the rhetoric has gotten so extreme and silly. Is
this really the epic battle of a free America vs. socialism? Is it the last
stand of the common man, the worker vs. fascism? Let’s examine it:
Has anyone considered that this argument, this battle needs
to be constant? Honestly, how does either side win? The government beats the
union workers and forces them to work for peanuts and no health care or
retirement benefits? Or the union workers win and get a 25 hour work week with
full benefits and an extremely generous salary? What would either scenario mean
for the greater economy?
Government jobs are supposed to be low wage jobs. They need
to be. A government does not run effectively
unless it is run efficiently. Once
people's wages rise too high, we are all overly-burdened by the cost. There are
a lot of government employees that are not in unions and they are not
complaining about their pay and benefits. That's because they are well
compensated for their work. These are politicians, scientists, judges, high
level federal law enforcement personnel, etc. You see, if you want a big salary
and nice benefits, you need to try to become one of those people. The educated,
the invaluable and those that work risky jobs or jobs that require their
attention 24/7. Driving a street-sweeper isn’t very risky and doesn't require
much of an education. Most anybody can do it. Therefore the person hired to do
that job should be compensated as such.
The flip side is that you can't just hire Hillbilly Harold
to be a crossing guard if he's going to stare at the young girls and creep them
out when they walk past and try to rub up against them when they're waiting for
the light to change. You'd better be damn sure that whomever you hire for a
rock bottom salary with limited benefits won't conduct themselves in a way that
opens up the city, state or federal government up to liabilities, PR nightmares
or other black eyes. After all, in order for the government to run efficiently, it has to run effectively.
Also, it takes time to train a new person, does it not? Even
simple jobs have many nuances. In my street-sweeper driver example, what are
the routes a driver must learn? What are the procedures? What does s/he do if
there's a car in the way? What does that switch next to the fuel gauge do? At a
point it is economically beneficial to pay a person enough that they won’t want
to leave for quite some time. This balance is the free market at work.
So here's how I bridge the gap: we need to pay people enough
to attract employees that will conduct themselves appropriately as they carry
out their duties. They need to be paid enough that we can attract people who
will be good representatives of our cities, states and of our country. The jobs
need to pay enough that we can attract people who will be good stewards of our
government resources (our vehicles, equipment, tools, funds, other employees
and citizens). I think we may need to give up the idea of collective bargaining
for government workers in favor of contractually-mandated bargaining power for
each individual. Otherwise, the worst worker gets the same pay and benefits of
the best workers. I believe that this is another area where we need to re-think
things fundamentally to come up with a better system.
So people, this issue is a fight that we are always going to
have. We must continually seek to find the correct balance of how much of a
salary we should pay someone so that the government is running at its most
efficient and most effective. It's not about which people want to destroy the
country by suckling off the government teat vs. the people that want to
suppress everybody they can to take all of the money for themselves. This is
about hiring people we can trust to do the government's work and allow them to
live a life of dignity for doing those necessary jobs. Why are people acting
like you need to crush the other side to save the country? What's the point?
The argument will never be won and just go away. It is the constant tug-of-war
that is the political process.
If you're so passionate about it, form a citizen review
board to evaluate the compensation of people in your community. Then pressure
the government so that your findings will have influence. If you don't get the political
influence you believe you deserve then shine the light on the politicians, get
media attention and get others to vote people out. Otherwise what you have is
politicians on the left catering to unions and politicians on the right trying
to destroy them. And they want you to act as their minions to help them do
something that will ultimately harm the country. Why play that game?
