Commercially Incorrect

We all know, to varying degrees, that some words and/or actions do not sit well in social situations. The “F” word, for example. Such language or behavior is referred to as politically incorrect. I would submit that recent events in the public arena have rendered some words as “commercially incorrect”. Specifically, the “U” word: union.

The Governor and a majority of state legislators in Wisconsin seem hell bent on crippling the unions representing public employees in the state. We’re not talking about mere concessions to mitigate a budget deficit. We’re talking about a unilateral dismantling of the right to engage in collective bargaining. Similar administrations in Africa and the Middle East are currently under fire for similar heavy handed activities. 

Those of you familiar with my opinions know that I’ve never understood why a labor union is characterized as the anti-Christ. Unions were formed to withstand imposed work rules, pay, and benefits on a group of workers with no say in their future. Never has a union been formed and then given rise to a company. Labor has always been reactive and always will.

The collective bargaining process so opposed in Wisconsin created contracts that both signatories knew were unsustainable. And both knew that they would both be sitting on a beach somewhere when the whole house of cards came crashing down. We’re all too familiar with similar dealings between labor and management within General Motors and this scenario is no different.

Are there successful companies with no unionized workforce? Of course. Just as there are successful companies with highly unionized employee groups. The credit goes to the corporate boardroom and the executives that accepted the facts as they are, not as they had hoped them to be. Are unions immune from graft and corruption at the upper levels? Of course not; no more so than corporate executives exposed to the same temptations. But at least the greed and corruption are more evenly distributed among all participants if a union is on the property. Ugly, I know, but we need to accept the nature of all beasts.

Many holding the reins of power lament that dealing with a union is laborious (no pun intended) and time consuming. Such  is the case when both sides of a debate are accorded an opinion. I imagine agricultural in the South was much easier when slaves provided the labor. Sad to say, but many of our corporate and political leaders lack that quality of “leadership” and simply want to travel the road of "my way or the highway" (pun intended) because it’s easier.  

Being a union member is not akin to receiving the keys to the kingdom. Most of my years as an airline pilot have been spent within the confines of a concessionary contract. To think that union membership is not fraught with reality checks and ensuing concessions is simply untrue. But to rob a group of employees, be they private or public, of their rights to bargain in good faith is the height of despotism and cannot be tolerated any more at home than abroad.

Some say that public employees should not have the right to strike. Federal employees are forbidden to withhold their services. The air traffic controllers found that out in the late 1980’s when they were fired for doing so by then-president Reagan. Ronnie was given all sorts of credit for busting the union, but all he did was enforce existing law. I cannot say that such a law covering a state’s employees is in order, but I do believe that such changes must occur, once again, through the avenues of bargaining.

And one more thing: where were the citizens of Wisconsin when such unsustainable contracts were being written? Watching TV? Listening to their favorite tunes? This detached kind of democratic government which does nothing until one’s personal ox is gored runs counter to what democracy really requires. We must remain engaged in the processes that ultimately affect us all. To single out a specific career field (teachers) and demonize their right to collectively bargain will surely come back to haunt us all. Many other states are watching so as to accurately gauge the level of resistance. In other words, your ox may well be next.

Oh, should Wisconsin really want to look into suspicious monopolies, perhaps they should take a closer look at the Fitzgerald combine: Scott leads the state Senate. His brother, Jeff, is Speaker of the state House. And their father, Stephen, was recently named the new chief of the State Troopers at the age of 68. Talk about a machine! It kinda makes a simple labor union look like small potatoes, doesn’t it?

Ball of Confusion

My head is spinning as events unfold around the globe at breakneck speed. The demonstrations against authoritarian governments in the Middle East and Africa continue to grow and seem ready to spread to China. Other countries untouched by such activity are nervous while wondering if they might be next. And here in the good old US of A the governor of Wisconsin seeks to stifle the bargaining rights of public employee unions under the guise of "reigning in costs". So, while we have folks in other countries revolting against years of tyranny, some in this country are fighting efforts to unilaterally rob them of their rights to negotiate pay and benefits.

There have been weeks when I've been hard pressed to find a suitable topic for this space. All of a sudden, I'm overwhelmed with competing themes as noteworthy stories flood the airwaves and front pages. What is to be made of this extraordinary confluence?

Perhaps it is nothing more than timing. After all, many have suffered under harsh regimes for decades. Now, though, the opportunity to communicate in cyberspace has stirred the embers of resistance into a new-found demand for change. No country seems to be immune as long-silent majorities find their voice and seek a fairer shake from their governments.

The idea that budgetary battles in Wisconsin could logically lead to stripping unions of their power has led to an unprecedented public backlash. True, contracts can always be renegotiated, but to suggest that teachers unions and other organizations representing public employees simply lose their rights to bargain invites such demonstrations. And rightfully so.

No entity is immune from public outcry in today's world of Twitter and Facebook and all their associated social sites. Coordination is as close as a text and such camaraderie creates a fervor not recently seen nor easily quashed. Whether we're talking of a foreign dictator or an elected representative within our borders, heavy handed behavior is no longer silently tolerated.

No one can predict what our world will look like in the next year nor who will be ruling countries currently in turmoil. It doesn't matter, though, because the bigger picture illustrates that all peoples, regardless of status or station, can exert a powerful force simply by speaking up. It also shows that those who have held a tight grip on power are generally reluctant to release it without a fight. Good lessons, to be sure, and ones which should not go unnoticed by those in this country attempting to wrest power from political foes by disguising their agendas as financial restraint.

Pick Your Poison

Last week a research study was released suggesting that diet soda contributes to heart disease. Yet the latest example of undesirable side effects. Red wine? Good for your heart, but your liver doesn't care for alcohol, does it? The Japanese diet apparently leads to low cholesterol, but many subscribers suffer from hypertension.

No, there's little, if any, out there in our dietetic cornucopia that has no deleterious effect. And if you think that's bad, let's leave the kitchen and wander into our bathroom's medicine cabinet. Here we find limitless examples of potions that, while treating one ailment, often create others.

If you take a statin drug for cholesterol you must also submit to periodic liver tests. That's because statins can raise hell with it. I took a statin for ten years at half dosage to combat what my doctor felt was high cholesterol. I thought the muscle pain I began to experience in my legs when climbing hills was simply old age creeping in, but then recognized it as a possible side effect of the drug. I stopped taking it for a week and, when the leg pain disappeared, the drug disappeared from my shelf. My cholesterol? 223, which is not too bad for a man of my age and a number that I'm willing to accept given the alternative.

I'm one of the lucky ones as I have, so far, escaped the need for other prescription drugs. Many are less fortunate and every drug out there has a side effect which, at the very least, provides the chance for yet another need for another drug. Allergies? Your prescription may cause swelling of the throat and difficulty in breathing. The ones that amaze me the most are those that fall under the "Erectile Dysfunction" category. They may cause nausea and headache. I don't know about you, but when I'm nauseous or a jackhammer is doing a number on my brain, the last thing on my mind is romance!

I'm not here to lecture on the dangers of drugs, but rather to illustrate how we must each become our own best advocate when choosing a given regimen suggested by our doctor (or dietician). Granted, some afflictions are so severe that any risk is acceptable. Others, though, are taken to mitigate minor irritations without so much as a consideration of the possible downside. Take a pill...be happy. Have a diet soda...lose weight.

Whether it be drugs or dining, everything that we ingest has an effect that we'd just as soon do without in addition to the desired benefit that we seek. It's a balancing act, to be sure, but one that demands a greater awareness and participation. Perhaps it can be best summed up by this advice given to me long ago: Moderation in everything (including moderation).

Dominoes

The events of the past few weeks are unprecedented in their scope or succession as country after country in the Middle East has ousted long-time rulers. Tunisia, Yemen, and now Egypt see unparalleled uprisings from their citizens who have decided anything is better than the status quo. This domino effect, if you will, must have some sort of common root that has finally tapped into long held resentment. What could it possibly be?

I submit that our seemingly innocuous social networks of Facebook and Twitter are primarily responsible for this phenomenon. Any repressive regime seeks to control the opportunity for its citizenry to communicate in unfettered ways. The fear of reprisals creates an atmosphere where most keep their hopes and aspirations (and frustrations) to themselves. It’s hard to limit such communication in cyberspace and I believe tweets and texts have created the catalyst which has led to almost overnight change within the halls of Mid-East power.

Other countries, in an apparent attempt to avoid similar social unrest, have taken steps to alter their structures. Jordan has fired their cabinet. Pakistan has down-sized theirs and now Iraq’s prime minister al-Maliki has stated that he will not seek re-election. I cannot believe that there is one nation in the region that is not busy trying to be more proactive.

This kind of change is messy, though, and no particular outcome is a certainty. First comes the demonstrations from those that have nothing. These demonstrations are nothing new and historically repressed. Once they begin to catch hold, though, those that have prospered under the current state of affairs take to the streets in support of its continued operation. Clashes ensue and the prospect of a civil war looms. We are seeing that in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities as the struggle continues.

Should despots be thrown from office, the vacuum that follows sometimes presents an environment worse than the previous one. Regardless, once that final straw has been laid upon the camel’s back, nothing else matters save the ousting of the individual seen as responsible for a country’s woes.

To make matters worse, other countries that have turned a blind eye to the dismal state of their allies' domestic affairs must now decide which devil to support: the one known (present) or unknown (future). Mubarak has been considered an ally of America in spite of the harsh tactics doled out to Egyptians. The US must now tread carefully while maintaining the foreign policy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Or maybe not...

Maybe it is time to shun this practice of embracing such regimes in the name of some greater good. History shows that we usually suffer from such alliances. How about looking a bit farther down the road and recognizing foreign governments for what they are rather than what we want them to be. Providing foreign aid to a country that is essentially a dictatorship is nothing more than a shakedown in which US dollars are provided in return for a promise of political change at some future date. I think we can say that such extortion, while possibly providing a short-term profit, leads to long-term loss for stability and progress.

In the meantime, I find hope in that such seemingly mindless pursuits involving a "social network" have merit and meaning in a world sorely in need of public involvement.