Tuesday, September 29, 2009

The Gumshoe Gets It

Brewtown Gumshoe states it better than I could:
Infrastructure - water, roads, garbage, etc. - should be handled by public workers: unionized, well-paid workers. First, the public sector acts as a safety cushion. During economic recessions they still spend - using restaurants, movie theater, concerts, buying appliances, doing remodeling, etc. - enabling businesses to stay open and workers to keep their jobs. Establishing, at least, a respectable floor during downturns. Second, they maintain the roads, water ways, sewers, airport, and on and on, that we all - businesses and individuals - count on for nearly everything we are able to do in our daily lives. This is kind of an important function for a civilized society. Not something to be privately controlled by the best-connected bidder.

We as citizens and taxpayers should, through our investment (taxes), be building/exporting a model that gives individuals a step up. People attack public employees because they have health care or because they have a pension. Are these not assets that any worker should want? How does criticizing and thereby disintegrating such achievement of labor help anyone? The more bargaining power one group of workers gains (and thereby increased wages), the more every worker is able to achieve better pay.

Why is it that taxpayers criticize public worker earnings, yet they defend CEO compensation? The same CEOs that are subsidized and bailed out with our tax dollars. Public workers actually perform a service for you. What did AIG do for you?

10 comments:

  1. I guess that if the workers aren't Union,the work wouldn't be that good, is that what you're saying? Also, not all CEO's took tax dollars. Public workers are paid for by taxpayer money, so I think we have the right to criticize, the same as we do our Pols, who are also paid with tax money. Also, I find it amusing that hollywood asshats who make 30 million bitch about CEO's. Talk about pot/kettle. As to the job they do, overall, they do a pretty good job on the roads,etc. I think those in charge need their heads examined from time to time. Yet, I think a non-Union outfit could do as good a job for a better price. Of course, we'll likely not know that in this state. BTW, thanks for not mentioning you know who for a change.. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whether or not a union outfit can do a better job is not the point. All outfits (unless management behaves itself) should be union. It's one of the few ways we get a middle class.

    As for hollywood, I'll bet many of those you refer to do a good job of drawing in ticket buyers which lead to higher revenue for everyone working on a picture. I understand that being on a movie set doesn't pay too badly either, as opposed to certain corporate asshats who do all they can to shovel most of the chips in their direction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. KR, as to the CEO's, no one denies that some are corrupt. It happens in all areas of endeavor. Yet, they are private companies, or for some, used to be, who's first priority is to make money for the stockholders. I don't agree with what some of them make, but, I don't think a govt stooge should decide it either. Unless they took govt money, in which case, they lay in the bed they made.

    On your first point, I disagree. All should NOT be union. The entire system would collapse on itself. Unions started out as a good idea,and there are still a few half way decent ones out there. That said,there are many more corrupt unions. Think about this, I make decent money as an Independent driver. Not as good as 10 years ago, but then, the dollar is worth less, and still dropping. If all companies were Teamster, everything you purchase would cost much more than it does now. There have been a number of union carriers that have folded in the last few years because they priced themselves out of the market, or were poorly run, by both management and the union. Competition is a necessity. Intelligent regulation is as well. Unfortunately, we seldom get both at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am not saying that all companies should be unionized. Several runs were made at Midwest Airlines to unionize the mechanics, but because the relationship was good the employees didn't feel they needed the representation.

    Some unions are corrupt, but regulation could keep them honest. The problem is that the employee is powerless, and it is no accident that when union power was sapped, the middle class has stagnated.

    It is necessary for the country to grow the middle class. That hasn't happened in the last generation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I disagree that it is duew to weakening unions. Middle class stagnation, it seems to me, has more to with cost of living and big government, State and Federal, taxes and fee increases outpacing income. Now, you may make the argument that more unions would mean higher pay. While in many cases, that's true, it also means higher costs, which are passed on to us. We're all going to get another tax increase next year, when Congress lets the Bush tax cuts expire. Yet, I won't get a raise until my company's contract with our customer comes up for re-bid. So, I make the same, yet my costs increase.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bill,

    A lot of the cost of living has to deal with the private market and their drive for excessive profits. Taxes go up because these prices go up. I have heard many politicians say that with cheaper health care, like the kind you hate, taxes could plummet.

    Bill, I'll call you Saturday about the cheeseburgers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hate cheaper health care? Where the hell did you come up with that?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm talking about the government run health care.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It wouldn't be cheap. I'm surprised you think it would be.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's cheaper than what we are paying now.

    ReplyDelete