June 11, 2012--Dinner With Liberals
We hadn't seen each other for awhile so there was lots to catch up about.
After updates about Jim's new job (not going well), Agnes' boyfriend (appears he is stepping out on her), and our various medical conditions (all good colonoscopy results), we turned to the serious business--how Obama is doing (disappointing), the state of Romney's campaign (better than we would hope), and the recent recall election in Wisconsin (also disappointing).
About the latter, I mentioned that even more ominous from a progressive perspective were the municipal referenda that voters approved in San Diego and San Jose to severely cut pension and health benefits for government workers.
"Ominous in what regard?" Agnes, the most liberal of us, asked.
"From an organized labor perspective," I said.
"What's so bad about that?" I was surprised by the skeptical tone of Agnes' question. Over decades she had marched on many picket lines.
"Well, there appears to be a national movement to blame our economic problems on unionized government workers. You know, teachers in Wisconsin and all the city workers in the two California cities."
"What are they supposed to do?" Jim asked. "Aren't these cities broke?"
"Probably," Rona said, "like pretty much every other city in America."
"So," Jim asked, "if they have no money how are they supposed to pay for all the benefits and pensions for retired workers?"
Silence and depression settled over the table. We concentrated on our tagines. Clearly none of us had a good answer to any of these troubling questions.
Finally Agnes leaned forward and whispered, not wanting to be overheard, "Please don't quote me but I think things have gone too far."
"What things and in what regard?" I in return whispered.
"With the unions."
"But since Reagan fired all the striking air traffic controllers back in 1981, hasn't union membership been in steep decline?"
"Mainly for private sector workers," Jim who is up on all sorts of data informed us, "Now only 7 percent of them are union members. Down from more than a third."
"What about government employees?" I asked.
"That's the real story," Jim said, "And why so much attention and ire are now focused on unionized public workers. Their number has actually increased. And by quite a lot. There are now nearly 8 million unionized government workers, about 35 percent of all city, state, and federal job holders."
"I'm getting your point," I said. "Why we are seeing so much public union bashing while soon, even without anyone doing anything further, hardly anyone working for a corporation will belong to a union. Look at what the UAW workers had to give back to keep their jobs when GM and Chrysler were about to go bankrupt."
"I agree," Rona said, "But, Agnes, make your point again because I'm not fully following you."
"Demagogues on the right are trying to distract us from the real problems with late-stage capitalism. After undermining traditional unions they are now trying to hold public sector unions responsible for our economic ills. But think about it some more. Traditional unions have effectively been busted so now they're going after government employee unions."
"Again just between us liberal friends," Jim looked around conspiratorially, "don't you think things have gone a bit too far with some of these unions and that this gives legitimacy to the conservatives' attack? Take government workers who, as Agnes says, are bearing the full brunt of this critique. Putting aside whether or not they should be unionized in the first place, why should they uniquely have civil service protection, which in effect means they have guaranteed jobs for the rest of their lives? It's almost impossible to fire a teacher or federal worker after they pass a two-to-three year probation period. Even if they are demonstrably incompetent. And why should they have uniquely protected lifelong benefits that they hardly contribute to?"
"To protect them from being arbitrarily fired," I said.
"Someone working for the Department of Agriculture in a mid-level job needs that protection? There are all sorts of laws on the books that protect workers' rights--pretty much all workers--so why do civil servants get additional protection? Again, even the most incompetent are untouchable."
"I'm not quite ready to sign on to stripping away this extra protection," I said, trying to cling to my progressive bona fides. "After all, some governmental firings in the past were more because of political or ideological reasons than the result of someone not doing a good job."
"You mean they were given a version of academic freedom protection?" Agnes asked.
"You could put it that way."
"So even elementary school teachers who are teaching basic skills and subjects need tenure--a lifetime job--so they can express freely their political philosophy to 3rd graders? I don't think so."
"I do see it to be a big problem--a political as well as a cultural problem," I conceded, "that someone in a private sector job--by definition an insecure one--who doesn't make that much more than a fireman or cop (and with benefits maybe less) could easily feel frustrated and angry about a neighbor who's a government worker who can retire with a generous package after only 25 or 30 years on the job."
"And which of course is paid for by the resentful neighbor through taxes," Agnes added with some heat.
"Look at us," I said, after ordering baklava for dessert, "We're far from being Tea Party members but scratch the surface and we too are feeling angry about some of this. True?"
"Yes," Jim chimed in. "And one doesn't have to scratch very far below the surface at that."
"But by comparison we're doing very well," Rona acknowledged. "We're all financially pretty secure."
"So what can we expect someone to feel whose house is underwater, whose kid owes $50,000 in student loans and can't find a job, or someone who lost her job and with it her health benefits?"
"And looks across the hedge," Jim said, "at her fireman neighbor who at 55 is about to retire, get 90 percent of his last year's salary, and free health care coverage for life."
"So my point is," Agnes said, as the coffee arrived, "it's an oversimplification to blame these feelings and the votes in generally liberal Wisconsin and the California cities to right-wing fanatics. Plenty of Democrats and Independents voted the 'wrong' way last week." She made air quotes.
"And if we want progressives to do better," Jim said, "we had better open our eyes to the truth and do something about it because otherwise the union movement is cooked and we'll have Romney in the White House and the Paul Ryan budget enacted by Congress."
"And over the fiscal cliff we will go."
"I need a brandy," Rona said.
"How about one for each of us?" I suggested. "On me."
When they arrived we wolfed them down and immediately started feeling better.
After updates about Jim's new job (not going well), Agnes' boyfriend (appears he is stepping out on her), and our various medical conditions (all good colonoscopy results), we turned to the serious business--how Obama is doing (disappointing), the state of Romney's campaign (better than we would hope), and the recent recall election in Wisconsin (also disappointing).
About the latter, I mentioned that even more ominous from a progressive perspective were the municipal referenda that voters approved in San Diego and San Jose to severely cut pension and health benefits for government workers.
"Ominous in what regard?" Agnes, the most liberal of us, asked.
"From an organized labor perspective," I said.
"What's so bad about that?" I was surprised by the skeptical tone of Agnes' question. Over decades she had marched on many picket lines.
"Well, there appears to be a national movement to blame our economic problems on unionized government workers. You know, teachers in Wisconsin and all the city workers in the two California cities."
"What are they supposed to do?" Jim asked. "Aren't these cities broke?"
"Probably," Rona said, "like pretty much every other city in America."
"So," Jim asked, "if they have no money how are they supposed to pay for all the benefits and pensions for retired workers?"
Silence and depression settled over the table. We concentrated on our tagines. Clearly none of us had a good answer to any of these troubling questions.
Finally Agnes leaned forward and whispered, not wanting to be overheard, "Please don't quote me but I think things have gone too far."
"What things and in what regard?" I in return whispered.
"With the unions."
"But since Reagan fired all the striking air traffic controllers back in 1981, hasn't union membership been in steep decline?"
"Mainly for private sector workers," Jim who is up on all sorts of data informed us, "Now only 7 percent of them are union members. Down from more than a third."
"What about government employees?" I asked.
"That's the real story," Jim said, "And why so much attention and ire are now focused on unionized public workers. Their number has actually increased. And by quite a lot. There are now nearly 8 million unionized government workers, about 35 percent of all city, state, and federal job holders."
"I'm getting your point," I said. "Why we are seeing so much public union bashing while soon, even without anyone doing anything further, hardly anyone working for a corporation will belong to a union. Look at what the UAW workers had to give back to keep their jobs when GM and Chrysler were about to go bankrupt."
"I agree," Rona said, "But, Agnes, make your point again because I'm not fully following you."
"Demagogues on the right are trying to distract us from the real problems with late-stage capitalism. After undermining traditional unions they are now trying to hold public sector unions responsible for our economic ills. But think about it some more. Traditional unions have effectively been busted so now they're going after government employee unions."
"Again just between us liberal friends," Jim looked around conspiratorially, "don't you think things have gone a bit too far with some of these unions and that this gives legitimacy to the conservatives' attack? Take government workers who, as Agnes says, are bearing the full brunt of this critique. Putting aside whether or not they should be unionized in the first place, why should they uniquely have civil service protection, which in effect means they have guaranteed jobs for the rest of their lives? It's almost impossible to fire a teacher or federal worker after they pass a two-to-three year probation period. Even if they are demonstrably incompetent. And why should they have uniquely protected lifelong benefits that they hardly contribute to?"
"To protect them from being arbitrarily fired," I said.
"Someone working for the Department of Agriculture in a mid-level job needs that protection? There are all sorts of laws on the books that protect workers' rights--pretty much all workers--so why do civil servants get additional protection? Again, even the most incompetent are untouchable."
"I'm not quite ready to sign on to stripping away this extra protection," I said, trying to cling to my progressive bona fides. "After all, some governmental firings in the past were more because of political or ideological reasons than the result of someone not doing a good job."
"You mean they were given a version of academic freedom protection?" Agnes asked.
"You could put it that way."
"So even elementary school teachers who are teaching basic skills and subjects need tenure--a lifetime job--so they can express freely their political philosophy to 3rd graders? I don't think so."
"I do see it to be a big problem--a political as well as a cultural problem," I conceded, "that someone in a private sector job--by definition an insecure one--who doesn't make that much more than a fireman or cop (and with benefits maybe less) could easily feel frustrated and angry about a neighbor who's a government worker who can retire with a generous package after only 25 or 30 years on the job."
"And which of course is paid for by the resentful neighbor through taxes," Agnes added with some heat.
"Look at us," I said, after ordering baklava for dessert, "We're far from being Tea Party members but scratch the surface and we too are feeling angry about some of this. True?"
"Yes," Jim chimed in. "And one doesn't have to scratch very far below the surface at that."
"But by comparison we're doing very well," Rona acknowledged. "We're all financially pretty secure."
"So what can we expect someone to feel whose house is underwater, whose kid owes $50,000 in student loans and can't find a job, or someone who lost her job and with it her health benefits?"
"And looks across the hedge," Jim said, "at her fireman neighbor who at 55 is about to retire, get 90 percent of his last year's salary, and free health care coverage for life."
"So my point is," Agnes said, as the coffee arrived, "it's an oversimplification to blame these feelings and the votes in generally liberal Wisconsin and the California cities to right-wing fanatics. Plenty of Democrats and Independents voted the 'wrong' way last week." She made air quotes.
"And if we want progressives to do better," Jim said, "we had better open our eyes to the truth and do something about it because otherwise the union movement is cooked and we'll have Romney in the White House and the Paul Ryan budget enacted by Congress."
"And over the fiscal cliff we will go."
"I need a brandy," Rona said.
"How about one for each of us?" I suggested. "On me."
When they arrived we wolfed them down and immediately started feeling better.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home