Wisconsin and the Unions

This post has been a bit delayed due to illness, but, conveniently, nothing new has happened, so, it's still timely.

The current political situation in Wisconsin is at once interesting and disgusting.  Public involvement in the political process is commendable at any level; too often the only people who become involved and get press time are fringe lunatics on either side of the issue.  In Wisconsin, the rank and file are involved, and I find that to be a good thing.  On the other hand, though, the heavy handed actions of the political majority leave a lot to be desired, and the cockroach-like hide and scatter tactics of the minority are deplorable.

The issue?  Too much money has been promised to Public Employee Unions over the years.  Wisconsin is not alone in this matter, as many States are finding themselves in this boat.  Collective bargaining by union representatives have gained members benefits that States are unable to pay for.  States are villifying the unions for this situation, but the blame lies on all sides.  State and Municipal governments are, generally, short-sighted, always assuming that the future will be bright and rosey.  Unions are, typically, heavy-handed in their negotiations.  The argument is that to retain good employees at lower rates, public employers must offer significant benefit packages.  There is some merit to this argument; but, it's a policy that needs to be looked at and modified quickly.  Retirement and medical benefits are crippling State and Town budgets, and, because of existing contracts, there is little that can be done about it. 

I work in Management, and, as such, I am generally anti-union.  I understand the value that unions have provided to labor relations over the years, and I believe that they had their day, and reasons.  Unfortunately, these days, they seem to be as much about political grand-standing as about workers rights.  During a large union strike a number of years ago, we hired a temporary technician who  needed some extra cash on the side while his union was striking.  While he was working for me, I learned a number of things that make no sense to me.  First off, his technical skills and knowledge were strong, he was excellent at troubleshooting, and had an excellent level of electronics knowledge.  His job at the union shop?  Janitor.  He had twenty years of tenure, and was making more money as a janitor than I was as a department manager.  There is something inherrently wrong with that.  He had no incentive to move into another position in the company, as his union protected salary structure ensured that he'd make more money mopping floors than he would working on the technical side.  The second thing I learned was that the union techs that he did work with were severely limited in what they were allowed to do while working at their jobs, based on their job titles and union requirements.  An operator was not allowed to troubleshoot boards, and a troubleshooter was not allowed to operate the test equipment.  This quickly leads to over-staffing, as you need one person to test the board and one person to fix the board; where one person ought to be able to perform both functions.  Inefficiencies such as these increase operating expenses for the companies that are burdened with them.  These costs are, of course, passed down the chain until it reaches the consumer.  People wonder why products made in China and Taiwan are so much less expensive than American made products...this is a huge contributing factor.

In Wisconsin, we've seen at least one other damaging aspect of Unions.  Schools were forced to close down for two days because Union teachers called in sick so that they could protest the Government actions.  Look, you have every right to protest the government actions, and should be applauded for your civic involvement....but, the result of that protest here is to SHUT DOWN the SCHOOL systems, and damage your relationships with the community and the children.  Your job is to TEACH, and I for one find it DISGUSTING that this sort of situation should arise.  Ronald Regan had it right when he stood up to the Air Traffic Controllers.  Unions be damned, every one of those teachers that called in sick and showed up at the Capitol should lose their jobs, period.  There are plenty of unemployed people out there to replace them.

The State's response has been less than stellar, as well.  I am unimpressed with the Democratic caucus hiding out of state.  I understand that it's the only thing that they think they can do to protest the changes that the Republican led majority wants to make, but, c'mon now, you've made your point.  You are going to lose the vote on the floor, get over it.  Get back to doing your jobs.  Attempt to work with the Republicans to craft legislation that can make major differences in your state.  Make your voices heard.  If the people don't want these levels of changes, it'll be easy to paint the majority as big bad bullies for foricing this legislation through on partisan votes, and the minority will easily run the tables at the next election.  If all you are doing is making a political point, you will lose the public-opinion portion of the game by continuing to avoid your responsibilities and hiding out in a different state.  Remember that your party was a part of creating these problems in the first place, and get back to doing the work that the State needs you to do.

Republicans are no longer blameless in this issue, either.  It should have been easy for them to paint the Democrats as the bad guys in this whole scenario....they already look like weenies....all the right had to do was point out that the Democrats don't want to be a part of fixing the problems in the state, while explaining that they are willing to hear Democratic proposals.  But, instead of inviting differing opinion, and overriding it; they have stood firm on their majority, indicating that they will pass these laws despite their popularity levels.  They took their lead, of course, from the Federal government of the past two years; but, that doesn't excuse it.  The Feds got it wrong, too.  The Unions have made some huge concessions (for them) in this whole evolution; but, the right wants to go further, and has the power to do so.  Instead of using that power to show everyone that they can do what they want, they should use their power to negotiate the best course of action for their state.  Unfortunately, in today's partisan world, navigating the best course of action does not appear to be a part of anyone's game plan.

Idolatry

It appears to me that we as a society have some serious issues with the way in which we idolize celebrities.  It is understandable that we look up to celebrities, and hold them to higher standards because of their public exposure; but, there are times when I think that our expectations go a little too far.

People are in an uproar now about Lea Michele, star of the Fox show Glee, posing for the cover of Cosmo wearing....are you ready for the moral outrage....clothes.  Check out the cover here.  Apparently, the low cut blouse is "confusing" to twelve year old fans.  Look, if your twelve year old is reading Cosmo, you've got bigger problems than them being confused about Lea Michele.  This, of course, comes on the heels of Lea and her castmates posing in GQ last year.  People are up in arms that these actors and actresses would pose in sexually suggestive poses and clothing.  C'mon, now.  They're all consenting adults.  And they all have smoking bodies.  If they want to pose like that, it's completely up to them.  If your children are reading GQ and Cosmo, it's certainly not the models fault!

And now, a Texas store has banned the magazine from their shelves!  Why?  Because Lea's character in Glee is a role model to young viewers!  Look...I've always had issues with the whole role model argument.  It's ok for your kids to look up to someone, but, let's teach them to look up to something in the realm of reality.  Who really thinks that students break out in song and dance in the hallways of highschools in America?  If something like that happened, there would probably be some intervention from the school.  Admiring the way a character on TV acts is a far cry from mimicing their actions in their lives.  Just because an actress models for a major ADULT magazine doesn't mean your kid is going to strip down into their underwear in the middle of the school.  Or, maybe it does....but, I'd suggest that there are other factors at work if your child is running through school in their underwear.

And why is it that Lea is the only one getting hammered for this?  Naya Rivera did a Maxim photo shoot last year in much racier outfits (check them out here), and didn't get beat up as badly as Lea is.  Nor was there talk about banning the magazine from store shelves.  Why?  Because Maxim is recognized as an ADULT ORIENTED magaine, and no one is letting their twelve year old children read it. 

Heck, Heather Morris has had some nude portraits done, that are widely available on the internet, but she's not even getting the attention that a low cut blouse is getting for Lea.

So, parents, take some responsibility for what your children are looking at.  Teach them the difference between characters on TV, and actors and actresses in real life.  If they aren't able to differentiate between real life and TV shows, you've got bigger things to be concerned about than what they're wearing in professional photo shoots.

Responsibility

When the mainstream, overreactive media isn't irritating me (all of about 10 seconds a month or so), I can usually count on some hyped-up, overly sensitive, morally outraged group to fill in the blanks.  There are so many groups out there that are actively engaged in protecting you from society.  That's right, for every thing you're supposed to be offended by, there is an activist group to tell you what it is.

The folks from Corporate Accountability International believe that it's a good idea for McDonalds to retire Ronald McDonald.  Their argument:  he appeals to children.  Well no kidding, idiots; he's a clown!  What did you think, he was designed to appeal to adults?  They claim that Ronald is peddling junk food to children, and is contributing to the childhood obesity "epedemic" that we've all been hearing about.  While I would agree that the Ronald McDonald character is geared towards children, I would suggest that he's not buying them any of the food...their parents are.  And if parents can't prevent their children from eating McDonalds food, the fault does not lie with the clown.  Ronald isn't hanging out at the restaurants telling the children to eat Happy Meals, and he's not forcing the parents to order food for their children.  But, today's parents are, apparently, not to blame for their children's eating habits.  Teach your children good nutrition early, and keep them active....that'll go a whole lot farther towards minimizing childhood obesity than attacking corporate advertising!

What has become of personal responsibility in today's society?  Why is it that we are not responsible for our actions, or our children's actions.  We are continually being told that it's not our fault; but, you know what, it really is.  Suck it up and deal with your choices.