Our friend Brant had some responses to Rich’s original Black Friday Post. Here’s his response, and my response to his response:
Some quick counterpoints:
* Just because someone works for the gov’t (i.e. “the people”) doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to have good wages and benefits. If the gov’t (as with any other employer) doesn’t pony up fairly, then unified action is totally fair in response.
* Yes, it sucks to be inconvienced for a day (or week or whatever) as a commuter, but trying to raise a family (to say nothing of saving for retirement) on $50-60k in the bay area sucks more.
* $50k – 60k sounds like a whole lot of money for “entry level” people, but these are also QUALIFIED professionals, not entry-level college students. And as I said, it’s not easy to raise a family for that amount in the bay area. I don’t know many of my friends that would be fighting to get a fat $50-60k job. That truly is entry level. It’s not halfway bad if you’re young, single and don’t own a home. But get out of your 20′s, try to raise a family, buy a home, save for retirement, etc…It’s tough on gov’t wages.
* Conversatives often deride the huge salaries of gov’t workers. It’s a nice fiction — but the reality is different. You don’t often hear people of going into gov’t work “for the money”. No, it’s more often that you hear of people LEAVE gov’t work “for the money”…. Sure, gov’t jobs aren’t half-bad, but the gov’t should pay good, middle class wages (with bennies) for their jobs.
It will suck if BART strikes (I carpool every day work — can’t iimagine the traffic!), but painting the unions as the problem is simplistic.
Brant,
One more counterpoint, for good measure.
The moral value/justice of your post hinges on the concept “fair.”
However, the meat of your post has to do with “lifestyle.”
If the jobs at BART were paid equivalent to jobs that require equal skill in the private sector, they would not start at 50-60k. It is ONLY because they are government jobs, with unions, that they pay so WELL. YOUR friends might not be clamoring for 50-60k jobs, but take away the union bullshit/requirements, and BART would be able to get tons of equally qualified applicants willing to work for less (not your friends).
Is it “fair” to have the BART passengers and other commuters PAY (it will cost them money and time) so that BART employees can inflate their ALREADY above market level wages beyond what they already are, leading to higher taxes and higher fees to ride BART?
Fair? To whom?
Remember, every time we privilege some group with legistlation (i.e., guns/physical force), we must marginalize another. When we give over 13.5 billion dollars in subsidies to farmers (in 2003 alone, not counting the 3 billion in “emergency relief”), we 1) take that 13.5 billion dollars from other people/parts of the economy, and 2) raise the prices of food for EVERYONE. Yes, the farmers who received the subsidies and price-fixing are benefited – no doubt. I’m sure there are those who feel that this is “fair” because they “should/deserve to” make a “good” living. Shit, I think they should be rich! I think everybody “should.” Wouldn’t that be nice?
However, reality does not recognize our “shoulds.” It operates on principles that completely ignore our personal opinions. When we manipulate prices/wages in one area it has profound effects on EVERYONE. When we unbalance one part of the equation, other parts must rebalance themselves. If we add to one part of the equation, we must subtract from another. (Imagine saving 13 billion dollars in taxes and having lower food costs…whom would benefit from this?)
Most importantly, when we do this through government activity/legislation, we are doing it with force. All laws/regulations, no matter how “good” their intention, are implemented at the point of a gun.
Is that use of force “fair” to the part of the equation that is unbalanced? Is that fair to the people who have the skills and desire but don’t want to deal the union bullshit? Is it fair to the consumers who would prefer to purchase the products/services that get eliminated through such unbalancing?
For example, my father decided to retire last week because California just passed a law that you MUST be part of the electrical workers union to be recognized as legitimate. So, to keep his jobs and stay competetitive/alive in the market, he joined. In the first couple months of being part of the union, he has been forced to deal with so much union “padding” and “pressure,” that he no longer feels like the boss of his own company (which he has owned for 30 years). When it came down to it, he felt his best choice was to simply quit and close his business.
Society has just lost a master electrician (my father was respected and revered as extraordinary at what he does – I mean did), and my father has lost the ability to perform his art according to his conscience.
Of course, the union electricians and shops (ALL of whom were “grandfathered” into the deal) have essentially eliminated their competition through the new law. Also, they have seniority over all the people who have just been forced to join the union. They get the best jobs, the best promotions, and benefits. The new members even pay dues to support the existing members increasing “bennies.” Ain’t that just sweet? And, of course, we all know that unions are known for their ethical and exemplary political/fiscal activities… HAH!
The union lobby just FUCKED all the non-union electricians is the ass with a BIG, ROUGH a government-issued dildo with no lube, and the government bent them over at the point of a gun to either take it or quit.
Is the increase in the already inflated lifestyle of union electricians at the cost of men like my father “fair?”
Again, if we make our personal “shoulds” the basis of “fair,” whoever has sufficient political power to unbalance the equation gets to determine what we “should” do and what is thereby “fair.” I prefer letting “reality/each person’s choices/the market” balance the equation, rather than corrupt bureaucrats and lobbyists. If the BART employees really wanted “fair,” they would dissolve the union and open themselves to competition. Of course, they wouldn’t do that, because they know that thousands of people would jump at the chance to do their jobs for less money. WHY? you figure it out.
Last, I want to be clear that I support people’s right to organize. I do not support government support of that organization. Union’s can justly picket, but they cannot violate/abridge the rights of any other members of society who disagree with them, ESPECIALLY “scabs.” If the unions can garner public support through reason, they are valid. If they revert to physical force and intimidation, they become part of the problem, not the cure. If they enlist a government to do the force/intimidation for them, that does not change the immorality, injustice, and ugliness of the issue.
(teloscientist is an occasional contributor to The Golden Gate. You can see more from him here.)
June 30th, 2005 | Economics, Liberty, Politics, SF Politics & Culture | 1 comment