Randy Alcorn: Public-Employee Unions Like Barnacles on Boats

Municipalities' gorge-and-purge policies are not only bankrupting cities but dragging down the economy

By Randy Alcorn, Noozhawk Columnist | Published on 07.15.2012 4:21 p.m.

(19)

There is nothing like a long, lingering economic drought to expose the barnacles stubbornly clinging to the nation’s ships of state. Whether they are the smaller boats of municipal governments or the big boats of state governments, many could run aground as the economic tide remains low.

As we have seen in California, some boats have already sunk. The cities of Vallejo, Stockton and San Bernardino have all declared bankruptcy. Just as boats must lighten their loads to stay afloat in shallow waters, governments must unload their ballast of bloat to avoid the rocks of financial failure.

While apologists for government largesse like to blame the Great Recession for these shipwrecks, the cause of this calamity is not insufficient taxes, it is excessive spending, most notably it is the lavish compensation ladled out on government employees by parades of complicit politicians seeking election support from public-employee unions.

The politicians move on, but the pension liabilities they approved remain. Nationally, the unfunded public employees’ pension liability is measured in trillions of dollars and is the single largest item threatening the solvency of many state and local governments across the United States.

Kathy Miller, vice mayor of Stockton, blames that city’s bankruptcy on excessive public-employee benefits. She says that if those benefits had been properly penciled out it would have been readily apparent how impossible it would be to meet the funding obligations they created.

It doesn’t require a degree in finance to understand that if employees can retire at age 50 or 55 with full or nearly full pay and medical benefits for life, it won’t be long before a city or state is paying for two or even three times the staff but only getting the services of one. Consequently, some municipalities are doing without adequate levels of police and fire protection. They can no longer afford the high pay and benefits public-safety unions have extracted from cooperatively cozy elected officials, so these cities must get by with fewer cops and firefighters.

Ironically, the very fear of insufficient police and fire protection that public-safety unions and their political allies employ to scare the public into accepting the latest demands for higher compensation results in the very thing feared — less police and fire protection.

Nevertheless, the gorging at the public trough continues. And, of all the public pension pigs, police and firefighter unions have been among the most gluttonous. Typically, they can retire earlier and with higher compensation than not only most anyone in the private sector, but also in the public sector as well.

The argument made to justify their exorbitant compensation is that their work is so dangerous. Yet, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration consistently list 10 occupations that are more dangerous than police or firefighter, among them commercial fishing, logging, farming, mining and truck driving. How many workers in these more dangerous jobs retire early with fat compensation packages?

For years now, insatiable public-employee unions and irresponsible self-serving politicians have worked symbiotically to enrich themselves at public expense, consequently undermining the financial stability of local governments. Now, as so many concerned observers had warned, come the predictable repercussions.

Because most often the unions and their allied elected officials have secured agreements and laws that subordinate all other financial obligations to union retirement benefits, the only option remaining for cash-strapped governments is to declare bankruptcy and default on those retirement obligations.

Prudent compensation policies and fiscal responsibility would have seen governments retain solid reserves to weather economic downturns. That would mean elected officials had to say no to incessantly greedy unions and to all wasteful spending. But, instead we effectively have gorge-and-purge policies — profligate spending leading inevitably to harsh austerity when the money runs out.

Pension payments will have to be reduced to reasonable levels for both existing and future retirees, who will also have to contribute to the cost of their medical benefits and to their retirement funds — just like the rest of us do.

The barnacles must be scraped off the boat and the excess baggage thrown overboard before ships of state can sail again. That is what Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker did when he rescinded public-employee union bargaining rights. It does no good to negotiate with these unions. They are greedy, invasive weeds that must be pulled out by the roots. The voters of Wisconsin understood that. Eventually, California voters must, too.

— Santa Barbara political observer Randy Alcorn can be contacted at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Click here to read previous columns.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use

» sbjoe on 07.15.12 @ 09:46 PM

First, there are excesses that must be curbed. Why a police officer at 50 can not move into another less physical job for the last part of his career in the city as age takes its effect is beyond me. That said, the article is rubbish for the most part. Vallejo declared bankruptcy 10 years ago. Stockton and San Bernardino had terrible leadership that lead to there problems- wasting money on pet projects like stadiums, movie theaters, etc. San Bernardino’s leaders are currently under criminal investigation because of possible graft and cooking the books. This article is more anti-worker propaganda which leaves those at the top blameless. Don’t fall for for it.

» publius with a small p on 07.15.12 @ 11:02 PM

Mostly spot on, with one glaring exception: many of the highest pensions go to non-union employees, including physicians (both in the prison system and at UC), high administrators in Cities, Counties, Special Districts, CSU, CC’s, and UC.

If unions were the only source of pension overcompensation, those non-union people wouldn’t have high pensions.

» 14noscams on 07.16.12 @ 01:48 AM

Santa Barbara’s situation is unusually perverted - we need law enforcement to protect us from ridiculously overpaid public safety union criminal vigilantes as well as those in city government.
It’s become fairly obvious that many local governments and counties are taking reasonable steps to avoid bankruptcy, and then there’s the city of Santa Barbara, where responsible government is defined as never passing up a photo opportunity. Since the national media included Santa Barbara in a short list of counties with the highest unsustainable pension liabilities, Mayor Schneider and city council members have not only taken no reasonable action to reduce our pension meltdown, they’ve increased it by approving the hiring of additional “public safety” officers under existing contracted rates, ignoring crime rate data that define this as an irrational waste of tax $$, vehemently opposed new sources of income by opposing new businesses and development, and emphasized city government’s irresponsibility in providing customary services by burdening local residents and businesses with the costs of maintaining city property, destroying future interest in investing in Santa Barbara.
The same day that our city council approved gouging city residents by raising utility rates (originally a utility tax requiring approval by 2/3 of the electorate in our democracy), “unrepresented” managers, city attorney Steve Willey, City administrator Jim Armstrong, and assistant police chiefs including Frank Mannix, got a 2.5% raise. I doubt that Governor Jerry Brown and other state employees who recently took a 5% pay cut have a problem with this discrepancy, since any rational person can predict that employment agreements that result in bankrupt governments have no meaning.
Barnacles are a good analogy, but I prefer the life sciences truism that a successful parasite is one that doesn’t kill its host.

» Rambler on 07.16.12 @ 10:11 AM

The SB County Sheriff’s dept hires SBPD officers who have retired at 50, paying them full salary while they collect a pension, and setting them up for a second pension.

The guy who runs the sewer plant makes more than the average CEO of a profitable company. And he isn’t profitable. He has no P&L responsibility, apparently. He has no sales and marketing responsibility, and if he has a budget shortfall, the taxpayer make it up through the general fund.

Fat, not barnacles. Check out the county building inspection office. Or the tax collector’s office. Overpaid managers crying about having to eliminate positions - while their pay package guarantees it. If you want to talk to them, you can usually find them beside a pool somewhere between 1130 and 1330, or on a barstool by 1600.

» John Locke on 07.16.12 @ 12:15 PM

OK, so why do these folks get elected? Possibly because of the very high proportion of voters in SB who, one way or another, live off the taxpayer. Death spiral in process.

» XFYRCHF on 07.16.12 @ 01:59 PM

Having been both a union officer AND a manager, some perspective may be in order.

Likening public employee unions to “barnacles on a boat” is pretty harsh, and from an insider’s view, patently false.

While unions are obviously in the business to maximize the salaries and benefits of their members, managers are in the business to minimize costs and deliver service most efficiently within budget constraints. That dynamic balance is important in BOTH public AND private sectors. Unions also play a very important part in the employer/employee relationship field.

In the 70s, our department and our employees were getting grossly screwed by management, the Board of Supes et al. Once we unionized, things began to straighten out and we were much better able to deliver contemporary professional services to the public. In the old days we would show up at an emergency with two underpaid undertrained out of shape firefighters in old outdated equipment. Today, the County delivers a professional three or four person crew that is well trained, in top physical shape in pretty much state of the art equipment. Is this cheap? Not a chance. Is it worth it? I think so.

The upshot of this whole story is that it is the responsibility of appointed and elected officials to strike a fair balance between costs and service delivery and to make sure that the taxpayers needs, desires and ability to pay are job one.

Blaming public employee unions for the fiscal and organizational ills of government is just whacking at the hornet’s nest.

» citizenSB on 07.16.12 @ 03:56 PM

Yes, Randy’s ‘barnacles’ analogy is harsh but not off base.
While for the most part we do have fit and trained ‘crew’, I do not believe it is worth it.

Having several government workers in our family including firefighters and accountants I have seen first hand the amount of real work they do and the games they play to maximize their retirement income.
We are very far away from getting fair value for our dollars.

» someguyinsb on 07.16.12 @ 07:34 PM

One thing we can all agree on is that Govt is bloated and many, many civil servants are overpaid. But remember that they are only acting in their own best interest - that’s what bureaucrats do! They protect their role, their position and their “bureau”.

The problem is and was that we gave these people blank checks. They spent, spent, spent and hired their friends and families. They felt entitled to earn as much as the top paid private sector folks and they literally, stole from us all so they could buy a house on the Mesa, send their kids to summer camp, buy a boat, a few new cars and god knows what else… It used to be that Govt jobs were 60% less than the private sector - that was until the Baby Boomers got their greedy hands on the till - they (yes, the Baby Boomers) set themselves up pretty darn nicely…

When I first moved here I was aghast that there was a full time employee in SB that did nothing but polish those brass fire hydrants… What!??

Should firefighters make 175-200k a year? No way Jose. In many cities in the US they are volunteers… here? We pay them more than physicians and they work less while living in luxury… its not rocket science folks. My friends who are FFs feel guilty that they’re paid so well but they’re not going to give it back… would you?

So what do we do? Do we fire every single person and start over? Do we clawback their salaries and absurd pensions?

We all know what the problem is but what is the solution? Its not changing a R for a D, or a D for a R, or a I for an G or what ever party shift… its the nature of the beast - they protect and pad themselves.

The answer to our problems is to do something incredibly drastic - but its not something that any one of you are willing or able to do. So it will continue and we’ll continue to degrade until all these people retire and are not replaced… another legacy of the Boomers.

» someguyinsb on 07.16.12 @ 07:54 PM

By the way: Here is the problem in black and white:
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-calpers-returns-paltry-20120716,0,971703.story

Every single budget and project was funded based on projected returns that were neither possible or sustainable… Whether tax revenues or investment return… the city, the county, the state spent based on impossible projections. We rarely ran in the red and when we did we spent it on ridiculous projects, insanely paid consultants and contractor handouts.

What ever happened to saving money for a rainy day? It flew out the window with Reagan and never returned…

» johndog on 07.17.12 @ 04:08 AM

I often agree with Mr. Alcorn’s opinion pieces, but I disagree when libertarians like Mr. Alcorn take cheap shots at working people and their representatives, calling them greedy, barnacles and weeds. No mention of the profligate tax breaks and subsidies doled out to “greedy, invasive” corporations and their armies of lobbyists feeding at the public trough. The fact is that government employees agree to work for low to moderate wages, and the benefits they receive are part of the total compensation package that is worked out. They work for lower pay than comparable positions in the private sector in return for better benefits. That is what is negotiated in the interest of providing the services to the public that government is expected to provided. Are there some abuses? Sure, but compared to the billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks, free use of public lands for grazing, mineral extraction, TV and radio broadcast frequencies, etc., etc., the benefits that public employee unions negotiate for their members is nothing, especial when you consider the services to the public that those public employees provide, particularly emergency, law enforcement and health services. Contrary to the libertarian philosophy, it IS taxes that are a central problem, that is, unfair distribution of tax burden, and absurd, regressive laws like Prop 13, which favor people who have already made it and businesses with already significant resources and assets over people who are starting out with fewer resources and assets.

» AN50 on 07.18.12 @ 05:05 PM

Johndog, cut the dopy leftist progressive crap. This old us versus them distraction never gets to the root of the problem. Here is a better way to look at the situation, contributors versus consumers of wealth or intrinsic economic value. Every one of us is either producing more economic value than we consume or we are consuming more than we produce. This particular metric doesn’t give a rip who you are, what you believe in or what your socioeconomic status is. It is only concerned with what you do and whether that contributes to our economic pie or consumes it.

In this way our leftist, socialist, progressive liberals end up strange bedfellows with some of their worst ideological enemies. Same goes for the right. Here is an example, almost all government is a net consumer of economic value or wealth, it shares the same bed sheets with the often maligned Wall Street, the banking industry, law and many other “services”. I love it when the right and left trade barbs over government spending and Wall Street excesses when both are no different, basically transferring wealth rather than actually producing any.

Now for the really bad news. More than 80% of the current economic activity in our economy is net consuming, leaving 20% to make up the difference. That 20% can’t and thus the huge public and private debt we are piling up as we seek to continue to live well beyond our ability to earn.

What does all this mean with regards to unions? They are they worst form of wealth consumers, an added layer of management that produces nothing and consumes quite a bit. Mind you I speak of the union, not its members. The workers in such unions representing manufacturing and construction are some of the most productive elements of our economy, adding far more than they consume, but their unions typically nullify that production consuming it doing nothing.

Public service unions are worse. Public service is already a net consumer of economic value as are most services and adding an extra layer of management on top of that makes it worse. And that is the beginning if the problem. They go about coercing more pay and benefits than the public can afford which is now bankrupting local and state governments, while the fed just prints its way out of the problem.

No right versus left here, no capitalist versus socialist, just net producers versus net consumers. I don’t begrudge the consumers, I don’t call them out, malign them or disparage them. Their ranks include some of the following: lawyers, salesmen, clergy, teachers, doctors, welfare recipients, bankers, accountants, clerks, janitors, firefighters, cops, investors, entertainers, athletes, librarians, politicians, unions, telemarketers, nuns, psychologists, therapists, hospitality workers, gardeners, consultants and on and on. Most of these people are hard working, earning a fair wage for themselves and being productive and valued members of our society. But their activities are net consuming of intrinsic economic value and thus someone must make more than they consume in order for the rest to survive at their current rate of consumption.

Think of it this way, for every manufacturing job you have in your town you support 2 to 3 service jobs in the local economy. Cut a service job and we are inconvenienced. Cut a manufacturing job and three other jobs are lost with it. All I ask is that each of us realizes who is producing more than they consume. Manufacturing, resource extraction and agriculture are typical net producers and logically so. It doesn’t mean a service can’t produce or a farmer can’t consume, so be careful in your evaluation, but generally speaking that is how it works. Right now manufacturing, the bulwark of our economic wealth engine is less that 9% of our economy. When it is gone (resource extraction is almost gone now) we will have agriculture as the only large net economic wealth producer left.

So ask your self this first, is the work I do contributing more wealth to the economy than I personally consume? If not, then am I supporting those who do, or trying to squeeze everything I can out of them until dead? We want our public servants and our private services. We want everyone paid fairly and what the market yields, but if we are not supporting the net producers, the guys on the factory floor, the technology producers, drillers and miners, farmers and laborers, those whose ideas and sweat create net wealth, producers like Microsoft and US Steel, Ford and Monsanto, Exxon and the little machine shop down the street, the guy making useful products from raw materials in his garage, if we continue to squeeze them out of existence or offshore to China then all we have left is those of us munching away on a shrinking pie.

» johndog on 07.20.12 @ 06:13 AM

Reply to “AN50”:

First off, let’s stick to the arguments and evidence for those arguments. Just as Mr. Alcorn referring to unions as “barnacles” and “weeds” is unnecessary ad hominem argumentation, so is referring to my position as “dopy (sic) progressive crap.” You are not convincing anyone with name-calling. Likewise, I mentioned nothing about capitalism versus socialism or left versus right in my comment to the vitriolic attacks on unions in Mr. Alcorn’s article.

Your Chicago School cost-benefit inputs-outputs type analysis is way off the mark because, among other things, it is rank over-simplification, and involves inappropriate comparisons; e.g., it is apples and oranges to say that “government spending and Wall Street excesses . . . are no different.” They ARE different. Even the worst, most wasteful government spending - military spending, in my opinion – involves at least some element of distribution of resources and benefits to working people down the supply and manufacturing chain. And much government spending, though not always involving models of efficiency, nonetheless provides very useful, often critically necessary, services and products (through large investments and grants in research, etc.). Moreover, everyone, consumers and business alike, relies on the infrastructure that governments build and try to maintain. “Wall Street excesses” involve hoarding (often times in off-shore accounts) and luxury spending by the wealthy and super-wealthy – very few here in the U.S.A. benefit from such “spending,” if you can even call it that.

Also, comparing small business (“the machine shop down the street”) to Microsoft, US Steel, Ford, Monsanto, and Exxon is, again, apples and oranges. Even small business associations simply do not have the raw power in lobbying and otherwise getting their way that the behemoth corporations have. Moreover, even though some unions do exert influence in government decision-making, it is not so much because of material resources – they are outspent by corporations in lobbying, political advertising and electioneering by over 10 to 1 – but because they are involved in the democratic process in the form of members who vote and engage in political activism.

Contrary to your assertions, unions do something, and have been in fact doing very productive things from their inception. For over a century they have been on the forefront of the battles to make workplaces safer for workers, reducing work hours, providing rest breaks, requiring the provision of benefits guaranteeing workers middle-class lifestyles (the so-called “American Dream”), prohibiting the exploitation of child labor, etc., etc. Without unions, the bargaining leverage is out of balance, and it would be Walmart everywhere.

It is fashionable in these days of the Tea Party and Fox News misinformation, distortion of facts and outright lies to blame public employee unions for the financial difficulties that some local governments are in. But that blame is mislaid. Bush-Obama over-spending on the military and war and 30 years of reduced taxes on the wealthy, the 2008 recession, bad investments on real estate, Wall Street shenanigans, overseas outsourcing of good-paying manufacturing, assembly and service jobs, etc., etc. are the culprits, not the unions. The fact is that income for wage earners has been stagnant for decades, while income for the wealthy and super-wealthy has steadily and dramatically increased - don’t blame unions for those disparities. The brewing Libor scandal is just the latest example of Wall Street corruption ripping off local governments. http://www.alternet.org/story/156387/matt_taibbi_dishes_on_the_"biggest_insider_trading_you_could_ever_imagine”?page=entire

One thing I agree with you on is your concern about the shrinking U.S. manufacturing base and the shipping of jobs overseas. But unions are not the ones responsible for that – they have fought and comprised every step of the way in an effort to keep plants and jobs in the U.S., where their members are. Blame Republican and Democratic administrations alike for the “free” trade deals, taxation policy and other legislation that enables and even encourages corporations to outsource.

John Douglas

» johndog on 07.20.12 @ 12:53 PM

I meant “they have fought and compromised every step of the way” in my final paragraph. John Douglas

» AN50 on 07.20.12 @ 01:55 PM

John, try not to be so sensitive, it is a blog for crying out loud. You are, which is typical, confusing personal, social or political value with market or economic value. This confusion mars every one of your comments. It explains why you see my analysis as rank over simplification. It is not. Economic value, that, which is determined by what you and I and the rest of the market value, is different from what activities you do that are valuable socially. The market is a brutal judge John. It usually ferrets out the unnecessary and chooses that which we need. Food, water, shelter and some security come first and thus those activities that satisfy those basic requirements generally have the greatest economic value. Bargaining for higher wages you may or may not have earned doesn’t fit that equation no matter how important it is to you, which is why most unions must resort to coercion in order to force an employer to pay them more.

I understand that those of you ideologically driven don’t like the brutality of market forces, that your intellectual narcissism drives and compels you to reject logic and the natural order of things and seek what you believe should be done in “fairness”. But like I constantly reminded my children as they were growing up, life ain’t fair. You cannot create value where none exists. You may think that having lots of breaks, overly safe environments and higher pay for less work is valuable, but the market says otherwise. It wants you to work harder for less and doesn’t give a rip for your age, safety or how many smoking breaks you want. You can threaten, cajole and coerce these things from an employer but the market will force that employer to go somewhere where they can satisfy market demands, not yours. Its harsh John I know, but the reality is that we (yes even you) the market vote with our wallets everyday. We told unions screw you and we told the environmentalist and safety Nazi’s the same thing and that is why our manufacturing is declining.

You can point to the excessive salaries of CEO’s, the disproportionate wealth of the 1% but all you are doing is pointing out the utter failure of coercion in a market that competes world wide. The best way to effect change is to use the power of the market rather than always trying to clamp it down and force it to do what you want. If higher wages, safer work places and environmentally responsible businesses are what you want, then convince the market (you and me) that we should pay for these things, then choose to buy products made with those standards rather than cheap Chino crap made by slave child labor. Trust me John, businesses want to sell you what you want at a price you are willing to pay as long as they can make money doing it. They don’t care about anything else. You have the power and always have in your wallet. If your socially valuable things are valuable to everyone else it will happen, without regulation, law, statute, unions, protesting, sit ins or any other antagonistic crap. The problem is you and most of the left are lousy salesmen and thus always resort to force.

» noleta res on 07.22.12 @ 01:17 AM

Johndog, well done.

» johndog on 07.22.12 @ 04:29 PM

AN50: Don’t confuse my remarks about ad hominem attacks and name-calling with sensitivity. As a retired trial lawyer, my skin is plenty thick. I just know that ad hominem attacks are ineffective in persuading someone to your point of view – just as your condescending and patronizing writing style is a turn off, regardless of the merit or lack of merit of your comments. Also, if you need to remain anonymous for whatever reason, fine; but don’t keep using my first name like we’re buddies, unless you plan to identify yourself, like I did.

Everything in life can’t be boiled down to “economic value,” as you call it. That approach IS an over-simplification. Your remarks imply that the market – which I agree is “brutal” – is somehow “free” and that all players are on equal footing to negotiate and trade, buy and sell, and that the market acts as a great equalizer in determining value. That kind of theory generally ignores the external costs foisted on others not party to the transaction, such as environmental pollution and other costs. It ignores that the market is skewed by the inordinate power that some market participants gain, enabling them to capture agencies that are supposed to regulate them, manipulate, control and dictate policy and legislation. All players in the market do not have equal leverage, which is why some people join together to form cooperatives and trade unions in order to level the playing field. You don’t like unions, but that is the “market” at work in a country like ours, with laws allowing freedom of speech and freedom of association. In many countries around the world, trade unions are repressed or banned, union organizers are arrested and murdered. I think that the USA is a better place to live than many countries in that respect.

Contrary to the fantasy world libertarians like to imagine in the mist of nostalgia, we don’t live in a frontier society any more. We live in a complex, multicultural and interdependent environment that requires cooperation and compromise if we are to survive as a species, and the planet is to remain capable of sustaining life as we know it. The market does not care at all about those long-term concerns. It is concerned with short-term profit for executives and investors now. That’s where government regulation comes in, and is useful. The same goes for all those services and the aspects of infrastructure that individuals and businesses take for granted on a daily basis. Some things have to be socialized because the market does not take them into account, and cannot operate without them in our current state of development.

Moreover, regardless of AynRandian/libertarian views on human evolution and behavioral motivations, we have evolved to a certain extent – more or less, depending on culture and surroundings – to place value in things other than the selfish satisfaction of our own needs. The “market” does not take into account the value we place in making sure that people born into the world with less gifts and abilities than others, or afflicted by nature or accident with disabilities, are given a chance to live in a modicum of happiness, health and security.

You claim that the activities of unions, environmental activists and safety inspectors are responsible for the decline in manufacturing jobs in the USA. That is patently false. In past decades a thriving manufacturing sector coexisted with a vibrant union movement and environmental and safety regulations in the U.S. The long term causes of the decline in manufacturing jobs in the U.S. are reduced demand for manufactured goods following recessions and slow recoveries from those recessions, accompanied by a general shift in consumer spending from manufactured goods to services, weakening demand abroad for U.S. exports, increased productivity in U.S. manufacturing, the expansion of foreign trade and competition from foreign manufacturers, as evidenced in part in the trade deficit with China, and changes in the structure of manufacturing employment from good-paying full-time jobs to part-time, temporary jobs, and an increase in outsourcing.

Moreover, out-of-control executive pay, investment strategies in which manufacturing plants are bought, stripped and sold regardless of consequences to communities, the primacy of satisfying the demand by investors for ever-increasing short-term dividend payouts, enabled by laws, including “free” trade agreements, tax incentives to investing overseas and other tax laws, laws governing transfer of assets overseas, etc., etc., allowing the transfer of manufacturing to countries with cheap labor costs overseas, are all contributors to the decline of manufacturing here.

I agree with you on voting with my dollars. I have participated in boycotts and refused buy products from businesses whose politics I disagree with for decades, and I have encouraged others to do the same. As far as me and “the left” being bad salespeople and resorting to force, I have no idea what you are talking about, nor do you. The “left,” as you call it has been on the forefront of the movements for justice, civil and political rights and peaceable resolution of local, regional and international conflict for centuries. Your previous comments on “coercion” suggest that you mean unions using “force” against poor, downtrodden employers. Boo hoo. The history of the organized labor movement in this country and around world shows clearly that it is corporations and businesses and their bosses who have used slavery and virtual slavery, child labor, inhumane working conditions, legal and illegal force and violence, etc., against workers in the quest for ever-increasing profit margins, and not the other way around. It is big business which has been the driving force behind all the U.S. wars of aggression and sponsorship of coups d’etat against foreign countries since the Spanish-American War.

You say I am ideologically driven, and I agree, but that does not mean that I am not open to discussion and debate, nor does it mean that my mind is closed to arguments relying on demonstrable and reliable evidence. Do mean by that remark to suggest that you are not ideologically driven? Take a look in the mirror.

John Douglas

» AN50 on 07.28.12 @ 12:08 PM

Good grief John such a tiring bloviation. All I tried to get you to realize is that fundamentally in an economy you have consumers of value or producers of value. You seem content in ignoring this simple observation because your profession is parasitic, along with your unions and you don’t like it. Tough luck buddy. It is what it is and all your leftist, Marxist ideology cannot change it.

Ironically you missed that fact that I beat the right over the head with this same fundamental truth. Piracy, gambling, speculating or basically getting rich quick at the expense of others, is no different than the parasitism of government, law, labor unions and a host of other activities.

You either purposely misread what I wrote or are dense. I will assume as a retired lawyer you have a brain and are not stupid so I wonder why you tried re-scripting the argument. It doesn’t matter really. You are emotionally invested in hating the profit motive for anyone not in law, one of the greediest and most profit abusive professions on earth. You point out the exaggerated pay scale of executives and ignore the horrendous market control the legal industry has and its unholy relationship with law making in government. The ole fox guarding the hen house was never more apt than in the legal industry.

In the end a labor advocacy that ignores the fundamental purpose of a business, to make a profit, is parasitic and self destructive. As an engineer I have always enjoyed the tangible benefit of creating and building things of intrinsic value. You on the other have spent a life time as an antagonist and obstructionist. You are incapable of creating anything of intrinsic value as your profession is not geared that way. Mr. Douglas, I don’t mean this as an insult to you or your profession though it probably sounds that way. It is merely an observation in the cold harsh light of reality. But unless you understand that your profession, those similar to yours, the labor movement, safety and environmental advocacy are parasitic and must rely on a strong core economy based on net wealth creation, then you will succeed in destroying rather than creating a better life for all.

I have always advocated better pay, for achievers and those who build the bottom line, not slackers. I have always advocated safety, because unsafe environments are less predictable a risky and I have always looked at environmental harmony from the perspective of waste. Any thing we throw away is wasted money. Any landscape improperly developed is a wasted resource. This is a capitalist approach to problem solving and taps into our desire to create and build. It is markedly different from the antagonistic and obstructionist approach of the Marxists. I do not bode you or your ideology ill will but if you continue on your current path you will destroy civilization rather than build a better one. The same goes for those on the right who prop up the ponzi schemes of our financial industry, piracy and gambling as legitimate capitalistic pursuits.

» keepingfamiliessafe on 12.01.12 @ 09:16 PM

I took the opportunity today to revisit the “debate” between AN50 and Johndog in the “… Union Like Barnacles” article since I enjoyed it so much the first time. I have to say it is very stimulating and compelling. Both sides make interesting points.

However, doesn’t it all boil down to the way our monetary system is setup and the exchange of goods and services with a finite amount of the all mighty dollar? If there is a limited amount of money being exchanged (not taking into account of course the government overprinting) then it makes no difference what the product or service is as long as there is a continual exchange. Of course that is until the system is abused. Yes there was a time when certain industry employees, like universities (UCSB was right up there), were underpaid and hence they were compensated in the pension and benefits packages. The pay scale in many areas finally caught up so those packages clearly should have been adjusted. Enter Wallstreet and the hoarders of the dollar. In my book far worse than unions. When a few take advantage of the many it throws the balance off. A good example of corporate greed recently in the news is Walmart, historically known for under servicing their employees with pay and benefits. Then, when their workers (who actually aren’t unionized) protest through legal channels, those in power whine and threaten their jobs if they don’t show up to work on Black Friday. If it weren’t so pathetic it would be laughable. Walton family members are the heirs to the Walmart fortune.

“Concretely, between 2007 and 2010, while median family wealth fell by 38.8 percent, the wealth of the Walton family members rose from $73.3 billion to $89.5 billion…”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/17/534591/walmart-heirs-wealth-combined/?mobile=nc

I’m all for hard work and for the owners of businesses and stockholders, who take the risks, to reap rewards but not at the expense of their employees. Wealth needs to be distributed fairly, especially when it ends up with profits in the billions of dollars. Distribution of wealth also includes paying taxes not having offshore accounts to avoid the taxation and then complaining about taxes being spent on services that help the poor and needy when they don’t even contribute to the system they are knocking.

When the distribution of wealth is manipulated through the worst type chicanery, the sale of products that don’t exist, (unless it’s research) if done in a large enough scale, it will also throw the balance off. Greed run amuck. And clearly man has a history of the manipulation of man so the need for Unions and government regulation is a no brainer in my mind. I agree the Unions have done some damage along with some government regulations and policies but in the long run based on our history, more good than not has been implemented. Deregulation of the banking industry allowed the greedy commercial real estate industry along with others to pull the wool over consumers’ eyes and throw us into a near depression.

I have to say that AN50’s pompous personal verbal attacks on Johndog not only put a distasteful drool on his argument they reveal a personality that has a hard time having anyone disagree with his position. Especially the lost post that Johndog didn’t even bother responding to. I googled John Douglas (since he was secure enough to reveal his real name and it turns out he is a retired lawyer; he was a public defender; someone who is clearly on the side of the “little guy” and from the dialog back and forth not something that is part of AN50’s DNA. Sorry AN50. I’m sure this will turn your coffee bitter if you read this.

» johndog on 12.02.12 @ 02:49 AM

We should all get together for a beer in Goleta or SB sometime and argue in person. I am on Facebook, and am easy to track down. Thanks for the dialogue, pro and con. John Douglas

1. Community’s Creative Spirit Shines Through at Summer Solstice Workshop - 06.19.2013 10:49 p.m.
2. Trial Begins for Two Men Charged in Motorcycle Death - 06.19.2013 9:56 p.m.
3. Showstoppers Theatre’s Young Actors to Take the Stage for ‘Foiled… - 06.19.2013 9:42 p.m.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Your Daily Noozhawk, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Facebook

Twitter

+ View More

Randy Alcorn: Public-Employee Unions Like Barnacles on Boats

Log in

Daily Noozhawk

Facebook

Twitter