Leery Erie

Those of us who live in Ohio should be aware that the Lake Erie eco-system is threatened again. As the shallowest and warmest of the Great Lakes, Lake Erie seems susceptible to every potential fresh-water malady. Unlike the alarmism spread by the chicken-little earth-is-melting crowd, the Erie threats are visible to anyone who chooses to look. Invasive species and highly toxic algae are the headliners of the choking attempt to strangle Lake Erie. This challenge is not Ohio’s alone because 3 other states and the province of Ontario access the lake. Aside from Ontario, Ohio does enjoy the largest coastal area.

Last week I sat in for Brian Wilson, the afternoon host at WSPD, Toledo, and the topic of Lake Erie’s precarious position was one that we discussed. The danger from the invasive species and the algae is so great and so imminent that proactive measures must be initiated promptly. If they are not, the combined threats could prove to be devastating for the lake. State officials are aware of the lurking danger, but have spent the bulk of their efforts pleading for federal help and intervention. Given that Ohio is now controlled lock, stock and barrel by the Republicans, the EPA under an extremely partisan Democratic administration will not soon be rushing to the rescue. That is a fortunate development because the Environmental Protection Agency   is an out-of-control, sometimes-rogue element of the federal government.

The proliferation of algae is related to the phosphate discharges and runoffs in the Lake Erie Basin Area. Because of the federal EPA’s propensity for overreaching, it seems likely that their remedy for restoring the balance of the lake would include severe restrictions on watershed agriculture and more stringent discharge allowances for the many municipalities and water/sewer districts that use the lake and its feeders and tributaries as repositories for effluent. The typical heavy-handed EPA approach is to levy massive fines, issue “cease and desist” orders and require massive disruptions in policies, procedures and practices of the affected industries and political subdivisions. Clearly the lake must be preserved for a number of obvious reasons. First, good stewardship requires that we protect a valuable resource such as Lake Erie. Second, the lake is an outstanding economic factor for the state and the region as a source for fresh water fish and a recreational bonanza. In addition, Lake Erie provides a shipping and transportation resource that serves the entire Midwest region of the United States. There may be other critical reasons for protecting Lake Erie, but the final one that I wish to address at this time is the lakes’ fresh water. The Great Lakes’ water is a huge valuable resource that is coveted by other regions.

Because the federal EPA is so strident and restrictive, it is best if the states and Ontario can address and resolve Lake Erie’s problems. In a sense the coordinated effort could be similar to “passive nullification.” Even though political considerations have led to EPA foot-dragging regarding the condition of Lake Erie, if the feds observe an active approach from the states, they will attempt to intervene to protect their turf. The states should respond with a “thank you, but no, thank you.” I fear, however, the state legislature has already sought federal assistance and will submissively yield to any federal effort to assume control. The state political class will once again fail to do its duty and place the people and the economy of Ohio in peril.

From the point of view of a native Ohioan Lake Erie is a precious resource that should be protected and preserved. It is too important for federal government interference. If our state legislators lack the will to tackle the lake’s problems without federal intervention, the resource will eventually be lost to the state, the neighboring states and the region. The federal government will either make the situation worse or assume total control of Lake Erie and eventually the other four Great Lakes plus Lake St. Clair. The State of Ohio must stand firm, defend and restore Lake Erie. It’s a civic duty and a constitutional necessity. We are already drowning in a sea of big federal government statism. We do not need to watch our lake go underwater as well. It is time for the private sector interests who are stakeholders in the lake such as the shipping industry, the recreational businesses and agriculture to band together for solutions. In addition the private sector entities should insist on state action and resist any federal involvement. The attitude that the federal government will come to the rescue is mistaken and costly.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 1370 WSPD, Toledo   www.wspd.com

   

UofA vs. EPA

In these perilous times for our nation and several of our states and communities, it seems as if new fissure points are deepening in our civil structure. For several decades union membership in the private sector has been declining as our heavy manufacturing industries have relocated to right-to-work states, moved offshore or upgraded to highly automated facilities. The labor unions, thirsting for the constant inflow of dues money, have shifted their focus toward retail establishments, service jobs and public sector employees to maintain their accustomed level of financial and political viability. Overall union membership continues to decline as a percentage of the population, but the militant unionization of the public sector has dramatically altered the dynamics of labor-management relations. Public sector employees negotiate their contracts with unelected supervisors and elected officials who can claim to be neutral even though many of them receive campaign contributions and union-based volunteers at election time.

Because of the dwindling private sector union base, the public sector organization efforts have become more robust and intense. This development, I believe, will become a self-defeating movement for public sector labor and for taxpayer-supported government. By unionizing public sector employees at a dizzying rate, unions have placed the civil service rules of the past century on steroids regarding the government’s ability to remove ineffective or corrupt workers. Many union contracts have constructed various hurdles and barriers to protect the unworthy employee, thereby requiring that others be hired to do the work that doesn’t get completed.

In addition, by funneling millions of dollars of campaign contributions and thousands of campaign “volunteers” into the election efforts of liberals and progressives (primarily), the unions are contributors toward the massive growth of government that so many of them are lusting for. Growing governments yield exploding bureaucracies that exceed the abilities of the political class or the people to control them. The union, nevertheless, is somewhat satiated because of their increasing rolls in the public sector even though their numbers for growth appear to lag behind the private sector losses. So, how many “good-paying middle class jobs” has an overzealous Environmental Protection Agency cost our nation, our local communities….and the unions who organized the laborers? How many union jobs have nit-picking bureaucracies from the entire spectrum of government, controlling departments lost because of their senseless oversight policies? While union leaders and their fundraisers scamper to expand their reach in the public sector, they continue to place private sector jobs at risk. Union members should ask their elitist, socialist-leaning organizers why they insist on killing or maiming hefty private sector jobs so they can squeeze more money for their political cronies.

Private sector workers must realize that their “leaders” are not looking out for them or their welfare. They are merely exchanging public and service dues-paying members for the losers who built their organizations. Every time some big-government rule from the bureaucracy impedes a private sector employer from growing or functioning well, a laid-off or ‘pink-slipped” union employee may be the ultimate recipient of the Big Brother overreach. Big government increases the tax burden for private sector union workers and places their jobs in jeopardy by over-regulating, over-licensing and bureaucratic foot dragging. Big Government’s inherent hostility toward the private sector has undermined its capacity for growth and prosperity…thus diminishing good job opportunities for the workforce.

It should be noted that a labor union wields the most power when it represents skilled workers in a labor-shortage environment. The union leadership’s efforts to organize service and retail workers will fill their financial coffers, but will not result in significant gains for the members. Maids, clerks and wait staff can be hired off the street after a couple of day’s work stoppage. It is more difficult to hire machinists and mechanics because so few people possess the requisite skill set. It seems, therefore, the modern movement to bolster union membership in the public sector could be the saving grace for a dwindling private sector group. The unions may be signing their own death knell with their new emphasis. Private sector workers may finally get a clue, and ignore or dismiss the leaders who have undermined them by promoting big government and massive bureaucracies. The public, the taxpayers, the people may withdraw or resist the expansionist efforts of the unions and big-government advocates.  The basket of tolerance can hold only so many eggs of higher taxes, government indebtedness and bureaucratic meddling before the eggs begin to break. The people’s discontent may rise to the point that the entire public sector will be either radically restructured or become so powerful that there will be no one remaining to pay the freight. Either way, the Marxist-leaning unionist’s strategy may backfire….as it should.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com      or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Shirts and Skins

Who has the “skin in the game?” That question defines the stakeholders in any confrontation or negotiation. It is the greatest problem or issue with public sector bargaining. “Skin’ is also germane for huge corporations and their labor negotiating processes. Does the negotiator or arbitrator who represents the government or the company have a stake in the outcome? A reasonable bargaining process must involve two parties who can either gain or lose in order for an equitable solution that does not drastically favor one side more than the other.

Although I have problems with national and international labor organizations, I am not opposed to local organizing per se. If workers are dissatisfied with their conditions or pay, they inherently and constitutionally have the right to organize (1^st Amendment, peaceable assembly). If their grievances are legitimate, and management/ownership fears losing their knowledge, experience and expertise, then they’ll work out a solution. On the other hand, management may conclude that they can replace the entire workforce with others and therefore fire all of the former employees. In this scenario both parties have “skin in the game.” The owners or managers want to continue production at a profitable level while the workers wish to retain their jobs but under improved circumstances.

There are private sector negotiations where the corporate leadership assumes the same role as do public sector officials. When bargaining takes place in huge corporate environments, the representatives for the company are employees or consultants who have limited personal stakes in the outcome. Just like their political brethren, they are more likely to “give away the candy store” in order to maintain peace and goodwill. Except for the highly skilled trades, there is no obvious reason for large corporations or government entities to succumb to the demands of the unions. Some negotiators, however, have minimal financial or emotional investment in the company or governmental entity, and thus, seek the fastest means for resolving the issues. Other negotiators may have the public interest as their paramount concern, but could be undermined by politicians who would rather “cave.” The corporate officers who may be engaged in the negotiating process are aware that if they fail to protect the interests of the company, they’ll receive their golden parachute and surface with another corporation or retire to Aruba. The people responsible for the political bargaining process trust that their citizens will have short memories. They believe that irresponsible concessions are less damaging for them politically than a strike, shutdown or slowdown might be.

While collective bargaining for public employees does have potential for fiscal abuse, the more onerous element is the “binding arbitration” requirement. Arbitrators are people too. They want to be liked. They want to be employed. If negotiations stall and either side requests arbitration, then the process calls for both sides to agree on an arbitrator. The arbitrator goes through a “fact finding” process and makes a determination that is binding for both sides. The arbitrator is generally limited to the two proposals submitted by the competing sides. It becomes an “either or” situation.  Again, the only “skin” in the game for the arbitrator is the desire to be gainfully employed to arbitrate a future dispute. The arbitrator’s motives may be pure, but self-interest can be an unintended persuader.

Who does have the “skin in the game?” Clearly for public sector bargaining the taxpayers are the ones whose well-being should be weighed against the benefits for the union members. The current mess that exists for so many states and local governments came about because concern for the taxpayers was a secondary consideration. The political class and the arbitrators (when used) were more focused on avoiding discord and strife than they were as stewards of the public treasury. Consequently, benefit and wage packages have grown to the point that the state and local governments are in perilous financial circumstances. Understandably, public employees become irate when efforts are made to bring their packages into sync with financial reality. As the public employees grouse and protest, the taxpayers become more aggravated and hostile.  The tension will continue to build all across the nation as those who do have “skin in the game” draw their lines in the sand in a hostile environment.

In Ohio as in most states, our present circumstances can be laid at the feet of previous legislators who lacked the courage and the wisdom to say “no.” They passed the legislation that gave public sector unions a stranglehold on state and local budgets. No such “negotiated contract rights” exist at the federal level. Former legislatures took the easy route by granting extraordinary powers to public sector unions, and now their lousy decisions have caused the fiscal situations to reach critical mass. It’s the same old story. Our state and federal elected officials have no real skin in the game, and the taxpayers lose their shirts.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

Short-Term Solidarity

The labor union movement has sounded the alarm for action as a result of the spark in Wisconsin. As the public sector groups protest the proposals of Governor Walker and the GOP, many private sector unions have chosen to join them as proof of “worker solidarity.” All over the nation public and private unions are linking arms to “prevent the exploitation of the working class.” Too late. The very fact that so many workers appear at these protests is evidence of their exploitation by their leaders…the union bosses. Many of us are familiar with the socialist/communist roots of the early labor movement. Based on Marx’s “workers of the world unite” and his proletariat revolution, the leftist leanings of the movement have been suppressed but never totally extinguished. The organized labor movement has arrived at a fork in the road in Madison, Wisconsin, and neither path promises a rosy outcome for the membership.

Across the country on Saturday and in many places around the globe, the labor movement has demonstrated that it will not tolerate any attempt to deny what it demands. Whatever the leaders of the movement fail to detect is that their loud and violent protests may lead to their further decline. Imagine if you will, that a snake lays an egg, and when the egg hatches, the newly emerged baby snake consumes its mother. Perhaps you prefer the praying mantis analogy. After breeding the female chomps the head off the male. Either of these illustrations could provide the scene that may occur when public sector unions overwhelm the private sector ones. Private sector unions have long promoted increasing government’s size and reach. Primarily through the electoral process they have supported candidates and issues that have been committed to a larger more intrusive public sector. For the world-wide Marxist movement the efforts have been incrementally successful, and the domestic unions—leaders and members—have advanced the agenda with gusto.

Rough estimates indicate that around 7% of the United States’ work force belongs to private sector unions. The decline in union membership and influence has been dramatic. On the other hand, the public sector union membership has been ballooning so rapidly that it now approaches the private sector number. Accelerated growth of government at all levels leads to a massive increase in public sector union membership and power. The erosion of the private sector unions has prompted their leaders and organizers to become more aggressive with their efforts to expand and organize the public realm. Common sense dictates that if you want union efficacy, you go where the jobs are being created…of government, by government and for government. Hmmm…sounds like a speech from dishonest Abe, patron saint of government control. Union leaders understand power and how to use it. Add to their awareness the historic purpose of the labor movement, and it makes sense for the union leadership to be supportive of public sector employee organizations. For private sector union members in the U.S the issues may not be so clearly defined.

The membership of the private sector unions are people, workers. They are taxpayers. It has been noted throughout the public union protests that the “goodie packages” for them are generally much better than for their private sector cohorts. In addition there has been an immense amount of pressure on the private sector units to concede some of their earlier gains in order for their companies to survive. As their membership dwindles and their benefit packages become less gaudy, the members see the public sector…the AFSCME members, the NEA and AFT members…clamoring for more and dismissing concessions as a strategy. On the one hand the private sector members may wish to encourage the public employees, but on the other hand the private sector members realize that it’s their taxes that pay for the government employees. It is their taxes that underwrite failing schools. Their tax payments provide the funds for the indifferent and impolite clerk at the DMV. They will comprehend that as the public sector becomes larger and more powerful, it will cost them a lot more money…and more liberty.

Many thanks to Fred LeFebvre of “Fred LeFebvre and the Morning News”, WSPD-1370AM, Toledo. Fred planted the seed for this column with a good-natured rant early Thursday morning February 24^th. Also many kudos to the columnists at www.LewRockwell.com  who have nibbled on the edges of this phenomenon. The private sector union leaders will forge on in the public sector, but their members will wise up and reject their nudging, pushing, threats and promises. The union label may be fading.

Comments:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/