ALPERN AT LARGE-The old adage “united we stand, divided we fall” still holds true today as it did at the founding of our country. And as my fifth-grade son learns about the Revolutionary War, and how we fought against “taxation without representation”, I can’t help but wonder how confused he must be about the debates swirling about the economy, the role of government and what constitutes good versus bad government in a democratic setting. But he’s learning.
For open they must be, as the historic recall vote in Wisconsin was matched no less in significance by the pension/benefit reform measure passed in the Californian cities of San Diego and San Jose, the nation’s eighth and tenth largest cities, respectively. Cities across the nation are expected to follow suit as California (perhaps unintentionally, in this instance) again becomes a “bellweather state”.
The union movement, as with all movements, has and had its original momentum set forth as a forward-thinking (dare one say “progressive”?) grassroots movement that ensured safe, humane and sustainable working conditions and a share in the profits earned by the sweat and toil of all workers employed in the private sector.
However, unions in the private sector are entirely different than those in the public sector (no matter how hard public sector union leaders try to hammer the taxpayers and the voters into accepting public and private sector unions as the same thing), and increasingly the political pull of public unions—and their control over the private sector that makes up the overwhelming majority of our economy—is alienating not only employers (“The Man”) but private unions as well (“Working People”).
It must never be forgotten that the famously progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt adamantly opposed public sector unions as much as he supported private sector unions. More specifically, he stated:
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.
The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.
A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”
Which doesn’t mean things can’t evolve, and that the public sector should never organize, but it does mean that true public sector civil servants have to control their union leaders lest they wear out the welcome and support of the struggling taxpayers who pay their salaries and pensions. Between 1995 and 2010, that very phenomenon occurred.
Cities and states are going broke because sneaky and unsustainable agreements and practices were hideously abused by misbehaving civil servants and public sector executives, and the latter group is still being allowed to overfeed at the public/political trough, despite federal attempts to limit this practice.
And let’s not even get started about the abuse occurring at the executive level in our state’s college systems, which were built and funded by, and meant for, the California taxpayer who’s been entirely forgotten by those systems’ leaders.
Yet attempts to divert the attention away from public sector unions who’ve gone too far (or, perhaps correctly stated, whose LEADERS have gone too far, because arguably the average public sector union member is not being well-represented) no longer will work as the number of active city/state employees and government services are in sharp decline.
Taxpayers of all political bents have plenty of capacity to be angry at both political leaders and their executive appointees, AND overreaching public sector unions. After all, the political leaders (such as Governor Jerry Brown, who initiated public sector unions in this state) are now presiding over cities and a state in decline … and are asking for taxpayers to pay more.
Taxpayers of all political bents also have plenty of capacity to be angry about corporate/government greed and insider dealings (both the conservative Tea Party and liberal Occupy Wall Street movements were founded on taxpayer outrage on this issue) AND overreaching public sector unions. Those who are infuriated by our nation’s current lack of true corporate leadership—there is virtually no “leading from behind” to make sure all worker’s fortunes and lives are bettered—are also angry at public sector union leadership.
So while it’s laudable that the LAUSD and United Teachers of Los Angeles have come to an agreement to spare further job losses at the cost of a school week, the question of who’s advocating for the students and parents is still a fair one to ask. While my son’s first-rate teachers at Overland Elementary School deserve everything and more, the same cannot be universally stated for teachers throughout the LAUSD—and it’s no secret how onerous it is to remove lousy teachers at the expense of everyone.
And it’s also no secret that our state’s prison guard union leaders have gotten everything they’ve asked for, and without any accountability or significant compromise whatsoever. What is a relative secret, but shouldn’t be, is that the financial influence of prison guard and education unions on Sacramento was and is being paid for by taxpayer dollars.
Ordinary parents can, will and MUST step up to pay for their children’s education, but the need for accountability and lack of political control of education has attracted two siblings, Molly and Charles Munger, Jr, who probably have a lot more in common with ordinary Californians than do their elected political leaders. Whether their initiatives to raise taxes for education or to limit corporate and union influence on political spending are the right formulae or not is uncertain, but their intent is on target.
So the fight to control politician corruption and bad corporate practices should not end, but they are independent of the abuse and inappropriate behavior that the current leadership of our cities’ and state public unions has displayed for years. Our June elections may not have been as ho-hum as its critics have stated, and our November elections may be pretty exciting, too.
And that sound you hear? That’s Atlas shrugging.
(Ken Alpern is a former Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Vice Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected]. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.) –cw
Tags: Ken Alpern, public sector unions, unions, politics, politicians, California, Governor Brown, pensions, pension reform
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 47
Pub: June 12, 2012
