February 27, 2011
QotD: Big government and big unions
The Times managed to get the salient feature of the story entirely wrong. They were not an “anti-government” mob, but a government mob, a mob of “public servants” objecting to austerity measures that would end, for example, the tradition of 14 monthly paychecks per annum. You read that right: the Greek public sector cannot be bound by anything so humdrum as temporal reality. So, when it was mooted that the “workers” might henceforth receive a mere 12 monthly paychecks per annum, they rioted. Their hapless victims — a man and two women — were a trio of clerks trapped in a bank when the mob set it alight and then obstructed emergency crews attempting to rescue them.
You don’t have to go to Athens to find “public servants” happy to take it out on the public. In Madison, politicized doctors provide fake sick notes for politicized teachers to skip class. In New York’s Christmas snowstorm, Sanitation Department plough drivers are unable to clear the streets, with fatal consequences for some residents. On the other hand, they did manage to clear the snow from outside the Staten Island home of Sanitation Dept head honcho John Doherty, while leaving all surrounding streets pristinely clogged. Three hundred Sanitation Department workers have salaries of over $100,000 per year. In retirement, you get a pension of 66 grand per annum plus excellent health benefits, all inflation proofed.
That’s what “collective bargaining” is about: It enables unions rather than citizens to set the price of government. It is, thus, a direct assault on republican democracy, and it needs to be destroyed. Unlovely as they are, the Greek rioters and the snarling thugs of Madison are the logical end point of the advanced social democratic state: not an oppressed underclass, but a spoiled overclass, rioting in defense of its privileges and insisting on more subsidy, more benefits, more featherbedding, more government.
Mark Steyn, “States of the Unions”, SteynOnline, 2011-02-26
February 25, 2011
“epistemicfail” calls on liberals to stop the evil Koch brothers
“epistemicfail” is trying to rally liberal and progressive forces to recognize and combat the evil that is embodied in the Koch brothers:
The KOCH brothers must be stopped. They gave $40K to Scott Walker, the MAX allowed by state law. That’s small potatoes compared to the $100+ million they give to other organizations. These organizations will terrify you. If the anti-union thing weren’t enough, here are bigger and better reasons to stop the evil Kochs. They are trying to:
1. decriminalize drugs,
2. legalize gay marriage,
3. repeal the Patriot Act,
4. end the police state,
5. cut defense spending.
Who hates the police? Only the criminals using drugs, amirite? We need the Patriot Act to allow government to go through our emails and tap our phones to catch people who smoke marijuana and put them in prison. Oh, it’s also good for terrorists.
Wikipedia shows Koch Family Foundations supporting causes like:
1. CATO Institute
2. Reason Foundation
3. cancer research ($150 million to M.I.T. – STOP THEM! KEEP CANCER ALIVE!)
4. ballet (because seriously: FUCK. THAT. SHIT.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Family_Foundations
The Kochs basically give a TON of money (millions of dollars) to the CATO Institute. Scott Walker, $40K? HAH! These CATO people are the REAL problem. They want to end the War on Drugs. Insane, right? We know that the War on Drugs keeps us SAFE from Mexicans and keeps all that violence on their side of the fence. More than 30,000 Mexicans killed as of December! Thank God Mexican lives don’t count as human lives. Our government is doing a good, no, a great job protecting us and seriously, who cares about brown people or should I say non-people? HAHAHA! Public unions are good, government is good, and government protects us from drugs and brown people. The Kochs want to end all that. Look, as far back as 1989 CATO has been trying to decriminalize drugs. Don’t worry, nobody listens to them because they are INSANE.
Let’s hope they heed his call.
February 24, 2011
They’re called “factoids”, not “facts”
There’s a factoid in common circulation at the moment that, measured by SAT scores, the states that ban collective bargaining for teachers rank almost dead last, while Wisconsin ranks 2nd. Neal McCluskey explains that this is not particularly true:
Now, aside from the factoid, if true, providing no real insight into whether collective bargaining is good or bad for education — there are myriad variables at work other than collective bargaining, none of which does this control for — but the factoid itself is highly dubious. Again, it is hard to find the original source for this, but I looked up 2009 ACT and SAT state rankings, and at the very least it seems highly unlikely that Virginia ranks 44th out of all states. According to the ACT ranking, for instance, Virginia places 22nd, and on the SAT (assuming the linked to list is accurate — I’m doing this fast), it ranked 33rd. It’s hard to see how those would be combined for a 44th place overall finish.
How about the Wisconsin second place-finish? Well, that is accurate for the SAT, but notably only 5 percent of Wisconsin students took the SAT — a negligible rate. On the ACT, which is the main test taken in the Badger State, Wisconsin finished 13th — not bad, but hardly great.
So what does this tell you? Not that collective bargaining is educationally good or bad — like I said, you just can’t get there from here — but that you have to be very careful about your sources of information. Unfortunately, that seems especially true when you’re dealing with education.
Wisconsin’s proposed labour laws not uncommon
To read all the huffing and puffing, you might get the impression that if the proposed labour law changes be enacted, Wisconsin public workers would be uniquely disenfranchised. As Josh Barro points out, however, that’s not very accurate:
The truth, as laid out in a GAO report from 2002, is that there are already 12 states with no public employee collective bargaining law at all. In these states, state workers have no right to collective bargaining; local employees have collective bargaining only if local elected officials choose to grant it. (And in a few states, notably Virginia and North Carolina, state law forbids localities to allow collective bargaining.) Another 12 states grant collective bargaining rights only to certain classes of employees, such as only state workers or only teachers. Only 26 states have a collective bargaining law covering nearly all public workers.
So that means that the model from which Walker proposes to break, much to the horror and outrage of public worker unions and their backers, is a model only actually followed by 25 other states. And indeed, by retaining limited bargaining rights for most workers (and fuller rights for a few classes, including police and firefighters) Walker is going less far in restricting public-sector collective bargaining than a substantial number of states already do.
H/T to Walter Olson for the link.
January 19, 2011
NFL not yet serious about negotiating with player union
Well, all signs are still pointing toward a lockout, as Len Pasquarelli reports:
“I’m just talking for myself, but, sure, I’m (dismayed) by the progress,” Carolina owner Jerry Richardson, who recently had sounded a note of pessimism on the lack of movement toward a collective bargaining extension, told The Sports Xchange. “To me, it’s baffling. It’s really baffling.”
Equally confounding was the disparate nature of assessing the condition of the negotiations from owners who spent nearly four hours listening to commissioner Roger Goodell and league vice president and lead negotiator Jeffrey Pash review the talks with the NFL Players Association. Unless the commissioner recently mastered the art of speaking in tongues, he and Pash delivered the same message to everyone at the assemblage.
But that doesn’t mean all the owners heard the same thing, because interpretation of the commissioner’s words was certainly diffuse.
There is, stressed many of the owners and club representatives present at the one-day caucus, and reinforced Goodell, unwavering unanimity of purpose among the NFL’s stewards. What is more scattered, however, is the subjective view of where things stand less than two short months before the existing CBA expires. The CBA between owners and players expires on March 4.
The players are being advised by their union reps to expect a lockout before training camps would be due to begin, and the owners have indicated they’re willing to keep the players locked out as far as the fourth week of the season.
The two sides, Pash reported, haven’t conducted a substantive negotiating session since before Thanksgiving. Despite reports to the contrary, there are no meetings scheduled. The union a week ago filed a collusion lawsuit, at least its third court action (there is an action before special master Stephen Burbank concerning the re-negotiation of television contracts that guarantees the league an income stream even in the event of a work stoppage, and an OSHA-type request on safety/injury issues) in the negotiations.
It can’t be in anyone’s interest to have another strike-shortened NFL season, but both sides appear to be willing to risk taking it that far. The league has floated the idea of moving to an 18-game season (up from 16 currently) while reducing the pre-season from four games down to two. The players are against that move, as they believe it will expose more players to the risk of injury during meaningless late-season games.
One of the big issues is expected to be the way drafted players are compensated: first round picks are being paid huge salaries before they’ve even stepped on their first NFL field. Both sides are probably willing to come up with some kind of cap for rookies (who, obviously are not represented in the negotiations), the owners to avoid paying millions of dollars to players who don’t live up to their reputations, and the union to try to redirect some of those big salaries to their existing members.
November 3, 2010
Monty: The flushing sound you just heard is California’s future
Monty pronounces the final doom of California:
That sound you just heard was the State of California irretrievably flushing itself down the toilet.
[. . .]
California’s most dire problems right now are related to public-employee obligations (pensions and healthcare). The power of public-employee unions in California have held the State and local governments in thrall for years, and with the election of Jerry Brown as Governor, the people of California have opted to spray kerosene on a blaze that was already threatening to overwhelm them.
[. . .]
Well, the die has been cast, California. You have placed your fate into the hands of a political party and a governmental machine that cares for nothing except what it can squeeze out of you to keep the party-train rolling. There will come a time in the not-too-distant future when you will have cause to bitterly regret what happened last night, and to wonder when the disaster truly became unavoidable. Well, now you know: it happened last night when you elected Jerry Brown as your governor. You chose to kowtow to the labor unions; you chose to believe comforting lies rather than the horrible truth.
You will reap the whirlwind.
Update: A couple of Twitter updates from Iowahawk sum things up nicely.
10:28: Boxer, Brown, no on Prop 19: congrats, California. You have officially gone Full Retard.
11:05: And as if California wasn’t already full of idiots, lunatics, and drug abusers, I’m flying there this afternoon.
September 28, 2010
Britain in the 70’s
A review of Dominic Sandbrook’s State of Emergency: The Way We Were. Britain, 1970–1974 sounds interesting:
As prime ministers, Edward Heath and Gordon Brown had quite a lot in common. Both were monstrously self-centred, permanently grumpy and capable of astonishing rudeness. Both of their relatively short-lived premierships ended in humiliating failure. In a recent poll of academics on Britain’s best and worst prime ministers since the second world war, Heath came ninth out of twelve and Mr Brown tenth. But that is where the similarities end. Whereas Mr Brown was largely the author of his own misfortunes (the banking crash apart), Heath, as Dominic Sandbrook reminds us in his splendidly readable new history of Britain during the four years from 1970, was faced with a set of problems whose intractability and nastiness would have overwhelmed even a far more gifted politician.
Heath both appals Mr Sandbrook and elicits his sympathy. Tory mythology still insists that many of Heath’s difficulties arose from his U-turn when he abandoned the free-market ideas with which he entered office and embraced an already discredited and peculiarly British form of corporatism the moment the going got rough. The truth is that although Heath had tried to present himself as the champion of ruthless neoliberalism, he was always at heart a “one nation” Tory with little appetite for the kind of confrontation his successor as Conservative Party leader, Margaret Thatcher, relished. His burning desire was to modernise Britain and to arrest its economic decline through efficiency, pragmatic problem-solving and, above all, by joining the European Community.
My family left Britain in 1967, which was a good time to go: the economy was still in post-war recovery, but opportunities abroad were still open to British workers. My first visit back was in 1979, which was a terrible shock to my system. I’d left, as a child, before the strikes-every-day era began, and my memories of the place were still golden-hued and happy. Going back to grey, dismal, cold, smelly, strike-bound Britain left me with a case of depression that lasted a long time. It didn’t help that the occasion of the visit was to attend my grandfather’s funeral: it was rather like the land itself had died and the only remaining activity was a form of national decomposition.
Some readers will find the way the author flits about tiresome, but given that he was born only in 1974 his almost pitch-perfect ability to recreate the mood and atmospherics of the time is remarkable. He does not lose sight of the fact that although the 1970s are now seen as a nadir in Britain’s post-war fortunes, for the majority of people it was nonetheless a time of growing affluence, widening horizons and personal liberation. Many of the positive developments that are associated with the supposedly wonderful 1960s did not gain traction until a decade later. Viewed from a distance, Britain in the 1970s looks ghastly — angry, decaying, on the skids. But that is not the whole story.
Mr Sandbrook compares this turbulent period with the four years between 1910 and 1914 described by George Dangerfield in “The Strange Death of Liberal England”. As he says: “Dangerfield’s story was one of political ferment and economic turmoil, of challenges to the moral order and rebellions against traditional gender roles, of Utopian socialism and Irish sectarianism — all rooted, like the challenges of the early 1970s, in profound historical trends that no government could possibly control.” Thankfully, the discontent of the 1970s did not end in world war, but continued, mostly unresolved, until the arrival of Lady Thatcher in 1979. That may pose a problem for Mr Sandbrook’s next book, which will be an account of the second half of the decade. In many ways it was more of the same, but without a central character as oddly compelling and sad as Heath.
I’m even more interested — in a grim sort of way — in the next book. It’ll be interesting to read an account of that time from a different perspective than my brief mid-winter visit provided.
March 31, 2010
More on the growth in public sector employment
March 15, 2010
PSAC president says public servants not paid as well as private sector workers
In direct opposition to common belief, John Gordon of the Public Service Alliance of Canada says that civil servants are worse-paid than private sector workers:
“Here we are again,” says John Gordon, the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada that represents 165,000 workers.
“Every time the government gets into [trouble] they kind of ramp up the rhetoric and the Canadian public starts to believe them . . .” he said.
In general terms, he added, his members’ wages run behind those in comparable positions in the private sector.
His workers are an easy target, he said, because the government fails to explain what it means to get rid of public servants — that services provided to the public would be affected.
For example, Mr. Gordon points to the work done by federal public servants during the H1N1 crisis to get vaccines in place and deal with the pandemic.
“It’s easy to broad brush it and say they should be freezing wages, which they have already done and cutting public services, which they are already doing . . .” he said, but added that the public has to ask itself what services it would like to see gone.
You see, unlike in the bloated private sector, where jobs are for life, and pensions are awesome, civil servants are overworked and underpaid. Any hint of reducing the costs of the civil service will automatically produce the most painful cuts for the public — that’s how the game is played. Even a freeze would somehow, through the arcane alchemy of public service financing, result in cuts only in the services most visible to the public.
Update, 16 March: An interesting sidelight to this is reported in Hit and Run:
California citizens are now encountering “state and local government officials [who are] increasingly . . . blaming budget cuts and furloughs when they withhold or delay the release of information requested under the state Public Records Act.”
March 13, 2010
Privatization? Let’s not be ideological!
Robert Fulford on the problems with unions in the public service:
Unions hate the very word “privatization.” And no wonder. Their present system is close to perfect: Their workers can’t be fired but can strike, as they do from time to time, demonstrating their power. They win most of their struggles with politicians, who throw billions at them just to keep them quiet. (After all, it’s not as if the politicians were spending their own money.)
This arrangement became commonplace in Canada about half a century ago, turning public-sector employees into princes of the working class who make more money than other people doing the same jobs, and receive more generous benefits.
Union members passionately believe this is no more than their due. The unions and their friends believe public ownership is fundamentally good, private ownership at best dubious. In 1994, when it seemed possible that Ontario would privatize liquor sales, the Ontario Liquor Boards Employees’ Union commissioned a study by a York University economist, Nuri Jazairi. He found, no surprise, that this was a bad idea and that the provincial government should continue to control every ounce of liquor sold within provincial boundaries, presumably for eternity.
But his report was most revealing when he turned to the motives of those who favour privatization. He suggested the idea sprang from “purely political and ideological reasons,” among which he listed “the control of public expenditures” and “limiting the role of government in managing the economy.”
It’s no surprise that the folks who benefit disproportionally from the current arrangement are the most vocally opposed to any changes which would reduce their advantages. If the government did get enough political will to go ahead and privatize, there’s no way (unless the government tied their hands in advance) that private enterprise would give — or could afford to give — their employees the same pay and benefits they currently enjoy under public ownership.
Update: Speaking of situations which could only arise under public ownership, here’s a perfect example:
More than 1,250 Ontario Ministry of Revenue employees will soon be receiving severance packages of up to $45,000 each — but they won’t be out of work. Most of them aren’t even switching desks. They’re simply being transferred from the provincial payroll to the federal payroll when the province moves to a federal harmonized sales tax this summer.
March 8, 2010
This sounds familiar
The other day, I wrote:
Once upon a time (and this is becoming long enough in the past to qualify as legend), government work was less well-paid than equivalent work in the private sector. The advantage of taking the lower-paid government job was job security: government workers had a “job for life” and a nice pension at the end of it. Private sector workers got more in the weekly pay, but generally had worse pensions and more uncertainty for long-term employment.
During the last generation or so, this basic trade-off has been lost. Government workers now get better paid than their private sector counterparts, still get practically guaranteed lifetime employment, and not-just-nice-but-very-nice pensions. No wonder governments have become the employer of choice.
Clearly I’m not the only one thinking this way, as Kelly McParland makes a similar pitch:
I like they way they put “bail out” in quotations, as if devoting billions of dollars to the rescue of Greece isn’t really a bail-out. Because in union-land, it isn’t. By definition, everything a unionized worker earns is deserved, because someone, somewhere agreed to pay it — especially workers employed by the government, who make up the bulk of the protesting Greeks. And since they earned it, there’s no reason they should make any sacrifices to help the country avoid economic disaster. No, that’s for little people, who don’t have government jobs.
Canada isn’t Greece, but it’s no healthier here to have a country divided into two classes. Class One: Public sector workers with safe, secure, well-paid jobs it is almost impossible for them to lose, with generous holidays, guaranteed pensions and protection against the economic cycles that prevail in the private sector. Class Two: Everyone else.
It used to be that the people in Class Two had an incentive for risking exposure to economic ups and downs. The pay was generally better, and it was possible to spend an entire career with a successful company and enjoy a pension at the end. Not any more. If events of the past few years have proved anything, it’s that no company is too big to fail, and there’s no guarantee benefits promised when you were hired are likely to be there when you leave. If the pension goes splat, like so many have, you’re on your own.
While the incentive to face the risks of the private sector have diminished, life on the government payroll has never been better. After all those nasty cutbacks imposed by Finance Minister Paul Martin, the Conservatives were elected in 2006, and have been spending wildly ever since. All the staff reductions have been reversed and the public payroll is bigger than ever. Salaries have largely caught up with private sector levels, and the pensions are just as rock solid as they’ve ever been. And you can’t be fired, short of indictment for murder.
At some point (and that point may be sooner than anyone believes), growth in civil service has to stop: there won’t be enough non-civil service jobs to pay for all the rest. Especially as government jobs become more and more attractive over their private sector counterparts. Why not take a job paying more money, with longer vacations, guaranteed pensions, and no risk of losing the job? You’d be crazy to take a job anywhere else, wouldn’t you?
