Politics and Unions

Stoicism says I should be interested in public affairs , but I should concentrate on what I can control, not dwell on that which I cannot. My anger and disgust only harm me mentally, so I should try to control my reaction to the current state of affairs.

 We have entered into an era in American politics where a tiebreaking vote in the Senate is enough to ignore cooperation and compromise. It took less than two months for President Biden, a shell of a person who might as well be a ventriloquist dummy, to abandon any notion of moderation and “reaching across the aisle.” 

 We have entered a period where intelligent debate is prevented by ideological extremism and media complicity. Like the Inquisition, we must stamp out impurity of thought.  “Right thinking” (make that “correct” thinking) has replaced God as the source of accusations of blasphemy. Success as a politician depends on your hypocrisy quotient -- the ability to honor people with whom you agree for engaging in behavior that you condemned when practiced by your opponents. 

 The “insurrection” of January 6 was rightwing by circumstance.  To suggest that identical actions by the left wing are not likely with the tables turned is worse than naive. When you are as righteous as the left, you are more likely. In fact, let’s eliminate the most radical on the right and left , and decide who is more dangerous -- the church going lady with historical prejudice or the angry folks who want to control who gets to speak and when. I am more frightened by the left than the right, despite agreeing with the left on many issues.

 I am not ready , willing, or able to have people tell me what to think and do based on their analysis -- if there is any analysis -- of right and wrong. They have no use for nuance, and they certainly have no use for facts that cause them cognitive dissonance. Just like religious folks rely on faith rather than facts, left wing zealots are bigoted, close minded authoritarians.

 I hate Trump. But I hate other politicians just as much - Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Cuomo. I would put them all in a small village in Alaska under house arrest, forcing them to eat all their meals together. I envision all of them becoming fast friends because they're all cut from the same cloth. Right now, Trump is such a potent weapon that the Democrats would be lost without him. Even Paul Krugman mentions him regularly, like a heroin addict who needs his fix. 

 I am not sure what I should do. Write blogs? Boycott radical news outlets on the left and right? Maybe I should just try to prevent long term damage by talking to people who will listen. 

 While I am on the subject, the House of Representatives passed a huge labor bill to make unionization more likely. Central to the bill was a section barring employers from holding meetings to discuss unionization. It seems that banning contrary opinion on unions is an honorable thing in America. 

 Are unions good or bad? If neither, where are unions valuable and where are they not? If one had to argue for or against unions, what are the most convincing arguments?

 The argument in favor of unions has to begin with the concept that employees acting through a union have more power than they do individually. Power to do what? Force the employer to do something by threatening to strike? Yes, that can certainly be powerful. And if the union's goal is more noble or virtuous than the employer's plan, then unionization is a good thing.

 But what if the union's goal is not more noble or virtuous? What if that goal benefits fewer than all the employees, and in some cases, hurts many employees? Thinking that a group of people is more rational and correct than a single employee or the business owner suggests that you have never seen mob mentality. Unions are not always on the right side of an argument, and they frequently make decisions that are better for the union itself than the people the union represents.

 I can state unequivocally that unions are not good for the best employees, but they are certainly good for the worst. Part of the union mentality is that everyone should be treated the same (seniority excepted), and the best employees need little help. As a result, unions breed mediocrity and a sameness about employee ability, and even where a union recognizes some employees are better than others, they are loath to reward them.

 Unions protect the work of their members, but sometimes at the cost of innovation. So, which is better, protecting obsolete jobs or making better or safer projects? I tend to come down in favor of innovation. 

 Union contracts do have binding arbitration where employees are disciplined, including termination. When that power is used to stop an unfair discipline, that is great. It has the effect, however, of many times protecting an employee who deserves the discipline. I have seen unions bring arbitration claims because they are afraid themselves of being sued (or charged with a breach of the duty of fair representation with the NLRB).

 Unions are run by people, and people are incredibly flawed. Putting corruption aside, even the cleanest unions can suffer from poor management. Sometimes, unions see their employees unionize because they are not the most enlightened employers. When they have to make payroll or meet a budget, they are not as generous as they expect employers they negotiate with to be.

 Some of the most racist folks historically have been members of unions and the folks who run them. Black union leaders are emerging, but at about the same pace as NFL head coaches. Since union members like to recruit relatives, they can perpetuate primarily white unions.  No, unions are not saintly, and devotion to them can be misplaced.