Pitching In

Across the country there are countless associations, organizations, and clubs comprised of members who supposedly support the goals of the given group. Some of these organizations are local affiliates of a national association, but nevertheless strive to satisfy a given objective within their neighborhood. Some are civic, some professional, and some focus on leisure activities, but all are geared toward specific areas of interest. Each, despite differences, has a common thread shared with all others: the dependence upon the membership to move forward.

Why is it, then, that any given group relies upon a minority to do the majority of the work required to accomplish anything? I’d wager that most of you belong to some type of group described above. Do you pay your dues and nothing more? Or do you pay your dues and pitch in to help from time to time? No heroics, necessarily, but every leader needs minions to carry out a mission. Are you ready to step forward and be the minion of the day?

Many are not and I’m damned to understand why they belong to the group in the first place. Perhaps they believe their mere presence provides a positive addition to the organization. And others may have no life outside of the club and maintain a membership for some level of socialization. The former is presumptuous; the latter pathetic.

The needs of any group are simple: ideas from an engaged membership and the man-power to put those ideas into action. Anyone else is dead weight (except for the dues, of course) and serve to limit any hopes of high morale and accomplishment. Everyone knows this, but every group seemingly remains mired in the “minority doing the majority” mentality.

And there is no good way out of this, either. What do you do? Throw someone out because of their lack of participation? Pretty soon, the association no longer exists, does it? There may be a way to prod our non-producers, though. My wife belongs to a horsemen’s group that has monthly meetings and regular trail rides along with special functions throughout the year. Each of these events (save the meetings) is awarded a point value and each member that participates is awarded appropriately. At the end of the year, the top ten point earners are recognized and rewarded with a token gift for their participation. I’ll tell you what: this group is something to envy when it comes to esprit de corps and promoting their agenda.

Maybe this formula might be a good way to incentivize any membership into doing more for the good of the group. True, we’re employing bribery to a point, but the end is still a noble one that may well justify the means. I’m not sure, but I can tell you that, in the case of the horsemen at least, you couldn’t ask for a more engaged membership.

For those of you (us) that join up and join in, good for you (us). And for the rest of you: give me an idea as to why in the world you’re here, sitting beside me with your mouth shut and your hand in your lap. Surely you have something better to occupy your time or sense of duty. It’s pretty obvious you’re not interested in making this group a better place to be.

Some may think my position is a bit harsh. After all, it’s the 21st century and we’re all busy and on and on and on. While I can’t argue that today’s schedules are hectic, I can argue that the tried and true adage of “anything worth doing is worth doing well” still applies, regardless of the date.

What and When

The “what” varies and depends upon that which is being demanded: freedom, rights, equality, wages, and so on. The “when”, however is constant: NOW! Both terms are ever-present in modern demonstrations and while the what may be reasonable, the when may be a polar opposite. Why is that, I wonder. Could it be that we have become so accustomed to instant gratification that we draw parallels from our technological world to matters of society and state where change occurs at a much slower pace?

It all began with the microwave oven, I’d say. Until then, we were all pretty much content to plan ahead when it came to our family life and the requisite meals and entertainment contained therein. All of a sudden, meal planning did not necessarily involve lengthy preparation. Whip it up (or buy it in a box), toss it in the microwave and, voila, dinner! Since that long ago time, we’ve discovered Tivo and other recording devices that enable us to watch TV on our schedule while skipping those pesky commercials. Video on demand adds to our ability to instantly gratify our cravings. And the internet has brought us a veritable endless supply of information and entertainment at the touch of a button.

Is it any surprise that we’ve come to expect what we want right now? The problem lies in the transference of that expectation to realms that do not rely on electrons: society at large and the associated legislative process that leads (hopefully) to progress for us all. The recent Senatorial election in Massachusetts may be a case in point. There can be little doubt that the status quo in the Bay State has been turned ass over tea kettle, but the question should be asked regarding the why?

One explanation could well be that voters didn’t like the Democratic candidate or identified more closely with the Republican who drives a truck. Another could lie in the fact that the Massachusetts medical plan closely resembled the proposed federal overhaul and voters weren’t crazy about expanding a program that has met with debatable success. But it could also be because, after one year in the White House, President Obama has yet to deliver on many (or any) of his campaign’s major promises and it’s time for a change wherever the opportunity presents itself.

The last possibility is the most disturbing to me because it speaks of this instant gratification problem I’ve described above. Is one year enough time to change the course of our ship of state? If so, maybe a Presidential term should be shortened accordingly. Personally, in today’s partisan atmosphere, I’d say that getting anything done in four years would be borderline amazing. No, a one year litmus test on overall effectiveness within the Beltway just ain’t fair.

Neither is the ever-popular “first hundred days”. A new administration and, presto, everything changes? No way, no how. We’re not talking about scrambling electrons into action in a nano-second. We’re talking about elected officials with ingrained philosophies and vested interests in avoiding large scale change. Left or right or middle, it makes no difference: to expect overnight results leads to further frustration and a deeper disenchantment with the political process. We need to be smarter and avoid comparing technological wizardry with the more mundane and time consuming endeavor of reshaping the priorities and policies of the world around us.

Change may be good, but not for the sake of change alone. We need to give our current plan time to sprout and prosper. If, after a reasonable period of time, it doesn’t bear fruit then perhaps we need to think about changing the game plan. But let’s not be too hasty in pulling something out just as it begins to take root. Save your instant gratification for leisure pursuits or food preparation and practice patience on more important matters that have far reaching consequences.

Be Prepared

Watching this week’s coverage of the earthquake in Haiti, I couldn’t help but flash back to New Orleans and the throes it went through in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. How could the aftermath of such disasters be so similar in countries so different?

True, the Haitian government was suspect on its best days and our leadership seems, by and large, to be well equipped to deal with anything that might crop up unexpectedly. Could it be that the only difference is our faith in Washington D.C. and our state or local officials while casting a doubtful eye on other nations? Maybe the same can be said for everyone, regardless of the country, as they trust their leadership.

Both nations (Haiti and the US), in their own way, had departments and officials and contingency plans in place for disasters that might one day come to pass. Let’s say, for the sake of this discussion, that both nations had equally viable mechanisms ready to go at a moment’s notice.

The problem lies within those plans and with those tasked with implementation. Were they deficient in some way? Not necessarily. But they were drawn up within the confines of bureaucratic organizational charts and the associated near-sighted objective of protecting one’s department and employment prospects. To insinuate that anyone could carry out the mandate of “my” organization invites the dissolution of “my” career and I just can’t have that, can I?

So now we have a great plan and great people to carry it out should it ever become necessary. The i’s are dotted and the t’ crossed. And, then: WHAM! Here comes the flood or the fire or the quake or the tsunami or whatever nature might have in store. The damage is widespread and severe. OK, let’s get going with those contingency plans. But wait: where’s the guy who’s going to start the process? We need him for step A before going to step B, but he’s nowhere to be found. And, until we find him, the process simply stops. I know, let’s call him. Ah, the landlines are down and what cell service there is will probably be overwhelmed. Didn’t think about this when we drew up the plan in our nice, air-conditioned office, did we? Combine this with the fact that those depended upon to effect the rescue, etc. may well be victims themselves. The New Orleans police were scarce as officers took care of their families before their citizens. Who can fault them, or anyone else in similar straits, for that? Other lynch-pins could well be among the dead or injured. Basically, command and control are non-existent with little to fill the void.

The Port-au-Prince airport ramp is covered with supplies. The local government, however, has not designated drop-off sites and the aid agencies haven’t set up distribution at those sites because they don’t know where they go yet. And when the sites are finally designated, security must be established to prevent riots and panic. It sounds a lot like the trucks of water and ice to be delivered to New Orleans, but idling in other locations awaiting a specific destination. Reports indicate that today (Sunday) such sites, supplies, and security are initiating operations. The quake occurred last Tuesday.

So here’s the bottom line, I’d say: despite everything your government says to the contrary, should disaster strike, you’re on your own for the foreseeable future. Do not expect water, sustenance, shelter, or medical care of any substantive degree. Folks died in Louisiana awaiting supplies or rescue and the same scenario is playing out in Haiti as I write.

Should we recoil at such a miserable response from those charged to minimize our discomfort in times of disaster? Only at the rosy predictions made by those same folks. San Francisco Bay residents are told to plan on a 72 hour period of self-reliance before aid may be expected to arrive. Well, in the event of a major quake most roads will become impassable. Bridges may become unusable further limiting access to certain areas. Many may be away from their homes should the quake occur during the work day and communication networks would be rendered moot as they become unable to cope with the demand. Seventy-two hours? That’s only three days. How about something more like a week and maybe more as one moves out from population centers.

Why don’t they tell us to plan on a week? Why, that would create some serious questioning over their plans and their effectiveness to serve the public. Wouldn’t it be better to provide a false sense of security so as to maintain the perception of competence and forethought (not to mention the continuation of the paycheck)? In that way, the public would be secure in the thought that everything would be fine until, of course, it wasn’t, and then we could explain why everything went to hell in a hand basket.

It’s happened before within this country and is happening now in Haiti. It has happened elsewhere, too, and there is no reason to believe that your community or your state or your federal government is any better equipped than those that preceded it. It is not inherently good nor bad. It is simply a fact of dealing with disasters. What to do? Be a good Boy Scout: be prepared.

Truth in Advertising

To All Employees:

My New Year’s resolution for 2010 is to be more honest and forthright in my business relations. A Corporate conscience, in other words. I have included my most recent letter to you (below) with annotations in red that reflect a more honest and forthright representation of my thoughts as I wrote it. Thank you for your time and continued efforts.

Dear Colleagues (Colleague, my ass. I’m your boss and hold your future in my hands):

I am writing to offer my support and congratulations in passing right to work (for you and right to fire for me) legislation in our state. It is no secret that I feel every American has a right to provide for their families in the best way they can (absent the unions, of course). And your right to work is an important cornerstone in that effort (so long as that right doesn’t interfere with my right to do what I want, when I want).

Every employee knows that I have an open-door policy and endorse our employee council and the suggestion network recently established. (If coming in to see me and sitting with a council and submitting suggestions gives you the idea that I’m listening, all the better for me.) These policies have empowered (undermined) the employee group and created an environment (façade) where solutions are as much a part of your job description as mine (and I need a solution to my high employee costs, by the way). Additionally, in the se challenging times (for you) there is little need for more money to be taken out of your paychecks for dues, etc. (Especially when I can ill afford an organized work force to challenge my every edict.)

I look forward to our (my) continued success independent of outside forces (unions) that seek to disrupt the harmony (my tune, my lyrics) we have all worked to create. Please feel free to drop by my office with any concerns or problems you might be experiencing (just don’t expect anything to change for the better). I’m sure that we can come to a mutually agreeable solution (such as you being more compliant or finding a new job).

Your benevolent (but don't push me) employer (dictator)

“Right to work” legislation exists in twenty-two states and, despite its noble sounding name, has little to do with fairness in the workplace. It weakens unionized groups by allowing non-union employees to garner all the advantages of negotiated rights without paying the appropriate dues and it limits the opportunities of employee groups interested in organizing. As such, it emboldens and expands the ability of managers to hire and/or fire with little or no regard for seniority, capability, or other established criteria.

I’m not here to extol the virtues of labor unions, but few can argue that they helped create the vast middle class that has historically fueled our economy. The middle class has been decimated over the past several decades and it is no coincidence, I’d say, that union membership has fallen within the same period. The bursting of the housing bubble has shown that the middle class was maintaining their standard of living through borrowing on the equity of their homes rather than a more normal progression of pay, benefits, and working conditions. Now upside down, many are realizing that they’re no longer middle anything as they face foreclosure and bankruptcy.

Would a unionized work force have prevented the current mess? Probably not, but it may have mitigated the depth of the disaster. A corporate conscience could have likewise softened the blow, but there seems to be little interest in promoting morality within the Board Room.

Either way, the “right to work” represents an agenda far removed from your rights as a worker bee and aligns itself more with a managerial goal of unfettered latitude when making corporate decisions. Many legislative initiatives are similarly labeled to provide a false sense of purpose. It is important that we take the time to look at the finer print before signing on to any so-called “better for us” proposal.

Safe and Sound?

I live in a rural area and rarely lock my doors or windows. Recently, I experienced a break-in. Well, a walk-in would be more appropriate, I guess. Regardless, I’ve taken steps to make sure that kind of thing will never happen again: I now lock the door through which the burglars entered. “The other doors and windows?”, you ask. Well, no, they’re still unlocked. After all, no one came in through them, so where’s the danger?

The recent security breeches within the commercial airline industry have many asking why and how. Now this is a touchy area for me since I still make my primary living as an airline pilot and the last thing I would want to do is provide ideas for would-be bad guys on jets. Let me start by saying that it seems our security responses to threats are similar to my analogy of the burglars. (No, I wasn’t burgled and yes, I lock my doors and windows.)

September 12, 2001 introduced increased scrutiny for box cutters and other small instruments as the 9-11 hijackers used them in their commandeering. Then, the shoe bomber was foiled and only then did we experience grater scrutiny of our footwear. A plot was uncovered in Europe that utilized liquids and, bang, we’re limited to 3 ounces of shampoo, lotion, and other gels or liquids. Now do see the similarity?

The standing joke was that someday, someone would put a bomb in their underwear and then we’d be forced to go “commando”. Well, the latest attempt involved explosives in the underpants and I’m waiting for such an edict. Investigations and the like are sure to follow so as to identify the flaws that allowed such a near-miss. But will they provide any substantive change?

Have you ever witnessed a magician performing a trick? It is impossible to figure it out until you are provided the insight and solution. Then, it becomes almost ludicrous that you could not have figured it out in the first place. Connecting the dots, if you will. Terrorism and other illegal acts are not that different. We try to figure out what the bad guys are planning and how to thwart them. Sometimes we fail to connect those dots and, in hindsight, we are equally confounded that we missed the clues.

Security is a laborious and tedious undertaking. And any security network involves an unbelievable amount of data and a likewise amount of personnel to collate and input the data into a likewise amount of computers. Is it any wonder that oversights and mistakes enter into the mix? Add to that the fact that those who are charged with entering the data and those that are generally the last line of defense against threats (the TSA agents) are many times the lowest paid and least capable.

Security costs money in manpower and equipment and to trust such endeavors to individuals possessing little or no education and the proper mental framework to perform such work creates many gaps within this “network” created to increase security. The truth is that most security systems serve only to dissuade the amateurs while hoping that the true, dedicated hell-raisers will screw up somehow. And many times they do as is evident by the latest attempt in Detroit. But sometimes they don’t and society pays a high price.

The only thing I can say without reservation is that I do not believe we have come very far from the level of security we had prior to 9-11. True, the façade is greater as is our inconvenience, but, by and large, we are still similarly exposed. Take a look at the recommendations of the 9-11 panel and you will find a host of counter-measures yet to be realized. The airlines don’t want to spend the money on something that has yet to occur (much like my burglary analogy) and there is little political will to enact legislation to that end.

In the meantime, travelers endure unbelievable affronts to their dignity in the name of safety independent of the fact that a greater level of security remains elusive. One needn’t think especially long or hard to imagine other scenarios that would cause havoc and panic and destruction within the confines of our borders. I’d like to think that we, just like our magician, could wave a hand and make the anger and hatred and zealotry disappear. This cycle in history must play itself out and to what conclusion is anyone’s guess. In the meantime, take no comfort that the “steps being taken” to ensure your safety will have any measurable effect until our security and intelligence forces start looking beyond their historic turf wars or preventing only a repeat of the latest attempt. This mentality provides no added safety nor is it sound.