Hate Working Weekends? Thank a union member - part 3 of 3

It is impossible to calculate the cost of the unions’ greed on the rest of us, but several recent studies provide some sobering, and frankly piss-offing (off-pissing?) indications. Policy Exchange, a conservative think-tank, calculates that people in the British private sector work 23% more hours than their public-sector counterparts over their lifetimes, thanks to public-sector strikes, sick days, fat holiday benefits and early retirement.

 Barry Bluestone, a left-wing economist, calculates that the price of America’s public services increased by 41% in 2000-08, while that of private services rose by just 27%.

Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford University, argues that replacing just the bottom 5-8% of American teachers with merely AVERAGE performers could move the United States from near the bottom to near the top of the international math and science rankings.

Public Sector Unions – death to thinking

The rigidity of the public sector does not merely reduce the quality of services. It also discourages innovation. In the private sector innovative firms routinely experiment with new business models, measure the success of those models and then expand the successful ones. But whenever public-sector managers have tried to do the same—by establishing magnet schools that focus on certain subjects, or charter schools with longer teaching days, for example—the unions have opposed them. Rabidly.

Greed Kills – How the Unions chewed off the teat that fed them.

Public-sector unions now face the biggest challenge in their history. Governments almost everywhere—particularly in the rich world—are being forced to cut back public spending. Many governments (for example in Ireland, Greece and Spain) are cutting public-sector pay. Others (for example in Japan and America) are freezing it. Greece is increasing the retirement age from 58 to 63 and making it possible to fire public servants. Britain is cutting government departments by as much as a quarter, and is reviewing pensions.

In the United States several rising Republican governors are keen to turn the short-term struggle over pay and benefits into a bigger battle about trade-union power. New Jersey’s Chris Christie and Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty have both eagerly taken on the new “privileged class” of public-sector workers. Do the public exist to serve public-sector workers with their high pay and inflated benefits, they ask, or do public-sector workers exist to serve the public?

Tellingly enough, even people on the left are beginning to echo these complaints. Andrew Cuomo, the incoming Democratic governor of New York, is rattling his sabre against public-sector unions despite the fact that they make up an important part of his base. Davis Guggenheim, an impeccably liberal film director whose credits include Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, subjected the teachers’ unions to a merciless critique in “Waiting for Superman”, flagellating them for perpetuating a broken system and presenting Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, as “something of a foaming satanic beast”, as one reviewer put it.

The unions have responded by proclaiming war on cost-cutting governments. They have already organized strikes and protests. Millions of French workers marched against Nicolas Sarkozy’s modest plans to raise the retirement age by two years. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets in Ireland and Greece against austerity measures. London Underground workers have repeatedly paralyzed transport in the city. Cities across the US needed to be fumigated after the Occupy Whatever Flea Party came through town after town.

Despite all the bloviating “take them out” references by the likes of Hoffa and the putrid acts of the OWS fleabags, public-sector unions will find it hard to win these battles in the long run. Or even the short run.

They have not been particularly successful in mobilizing public anger, considering the scale of the cutbacks, nor have they notched up any notable victories. The Greek and Irish governments have implemented their austerity packages and Nicolas Sarkozy has raised the retirement age in France. They are also discovering that many people in the private sector regard their public-sector colleagues as an overprivileged, underworked remora on the belly of productive society. Spanish civil servants were shocked at how little support they got when, last June, they protested against a 5% cut in pay. And a recent poll showed that 65% of people in stick-in-the-mud Greece want civil servants to lose their job security.

 The pressure to rationalize the public sector is likely to continue in coming years. The debt level in OECD countries is expected to rise to 120% of GDP by 2014, thanks to a combination of ageing populations and inherited obligations, some of them driven by the public sector’s insatiable appetite for pensions. Joshua Rauh, of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, reckons that seven American states will have exhausted their pension assets by 2020. America itself will have its debt level over 108% of GDP – not far off from Greece in a year or two. 

Check your boots for cling on poop.

It would be a mistake to write off the public-sector unions. They are masters of diverting attention from strategic to tactical questions. Undoubtedly the unions will lose some of their privileges over the coming years; the scale of the debt crisis makes this inevitable. But will governments have the courage to tackle the root causes of the problem (such as pensions) rather than dealing with secondary problems (such as wages)? 

And will they dare to tackle questions of power rather than just pay and perks? If they are to claim victory in the coming fight, they need not just to restore the public finances to health - rather they need to remove the tiger grip of mediocrity placed around the necks of scociety by the uions and the limp souled politicians that support them.

Buy union made? I'd rather go without.

Solidarity is how WE all get screwed by the public sector unions - part 2 of 3

Economists still debate exactly what impact public-sector unions have on pay but, you probably already know the answer to this one. Evidence from the American Bureau of Labor Statistics support the conservative argument that they have used their power to extract a wage premium to wit public-sector workers earn, on average, a third more than their private-sector counterparts.

Three economic facts are clear:

·      Unions have suppressed wage differentials in the public sector.

Wage differentials are relatively small in the public sector. Lower-level workers, such as secretaries, are usually better paid than their private-sector equivalents, whereas higher-level workers are worse paid. This not only makes it difficult to attract high-flyers into the public sector, but also makes it hard to raise standards by, for instance, putting the best head teachers in charge of groups of schools.

·      They have extracted extra-ordinary benefits for their members.

Why are benefits are generous in the public sector? Easy answer – corrupt and lazy politicians. Governments tend to give their workers light workloads and generous pensions in lieu of higher wages (which have to come out of the current budget). In America teachers teach for a mere 180 days a year. In Brazil they have the right to take 40 days off a year—out of 200 working days—without giving an explanation or losing a centavo of pay.

The defined-benefits revolution that has swept through the private sector has hardly touched the public one: 90% of American state- and local-government workers have defined-benefit plans, compared with 20% of private-sector workers.

Generous pensions have produced an epidemic of early retirement. In Brazil civil servants can retire on full pay after 35 years on the job (30 for women) and teachers can retire after 30 years (25 for women). The result is that Brazil spends as high a proportion of its GDP on pensions (12%) as Britain does, even though the population is much younger. In Poland soldiers and policemen can retire after just 15 years, so it is possible to come across 33-year-old retirees.

 Add to this the fact that any public-sector worker can hide behind union power to game the system—82% of senior California Highway Patrol officers discover a disabling injury about a year before they retire—and you have a dysfunctional mess. Makes you wonder how dumb the other 18% are!

·      They have protected underperforming workers from being fired in order to create a reason for the existence of the union (not to mention the retention of the dues revenue stream!)

Unions have made it impossible to shit-can incompetent workers. In Greece there is a law against sacking government workers solely on grounds of poor performance.

In other countries there might as well be. Mary Jo McGrath, a Californian lawyer, says that “getting rid of a problem teacher can make the O.J. trial look like a birthday party.” In 2000-10 the Los Angeles school district spent $3.5m trying to get rid of seven of its 33,000 teachers, and succeeded with only five.

Incompetence is so endemic that several countries have invented phrases to deal with it. Brazilians joke that public-sector workers turn up on the first day, hang their jackets on the back of the chair, and are never seen again. The Greeks talk about putting incompetents “in the fridge”—giving them pretend jobs. In France it is the cupboard. Americans refer to “the dance of the lemons”—the practice of reassigning bad teachers to new schools rather than getting rid of them. They also refer to the “rubber room” where incompetent or criminal teachers bounce around, often for years, while administrators and unions haggle over what is to be done with them.

The unions’ influence extends to the size and nature of the public sector. Private-sector unions have learned to exercise self-restraint when it comes to pushing for more manpower: they realize that more workers may reduce the wages of their members and that a higher wage bill may drive their employers out of business. But public-sector unions are relentless in demanding more resources and more personnel, which conveniently translate into more members and more dues.

In California, the prison guards’ union has been one of the leading advocates of getting tough on crime. The result of this policy has been a dramatic increase in both the size of the state’s prison-industrial complex (from 12 prisons in 1980 to 33 in 2000) and the pay of the people who run it (prison guards in 2006 made $70,000 a year in base salary and $100,000 with overtime).

But public-sector unions can prosper simply by opposing rationalization: Buffalo, in New York state, has as many public workers in 2006 as it did in 1950, despite the fact that the city has lost HALF its population.

Public-sector unions combine support for higher spending with vigorous opposition to more accountability, performance based pay or outsourcing.

The teachers’ unions have an impressive record of terminating reformers. When Marietta Giannakou, the education minister in the last New Democracy government in Greece, insisted on teacher accountability, she lost her seat at the next election. Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of the awful school system in Washington, DC, closed failing schools, fired more than 200 ineffective teachers and principals, and advocated merit pay. But the unions fought her every step of the way, using their muscle first to get rid of her patron, the city’s mayor, and then to bring about her own resignation.

Next posting: Hate working weekends? Thank a union member. Part 3 of 3.

The Destruction of Science

Further to my previous blog about how rogue scientists were manipulating data in order to artificially create the leftist panic that is global warming and climate change, I wanted to explore on both a practical and philosophical level these manipulations cause to legitimate research, science and scientists. These acts consist of taking scientific data and observations (evidence) and manipulating it for purposes of an agenda – any agenda, in this case a leftist agenda.

Burying the results, destroying the evidence, distorting the data, secreting the findings, covering up the proof, presenting only partial findings and suppressing the rest, and slandering anyone who doesn't adhere to the belief system.

It’s all part of the program – and all part of the pattern.

To be clear – I am NOT saying that the scientists did these things to highlight a particular belief system they hold (in violation of all scientific principles), I am saying, and the evidence supports the supposition, that they did it for personal, economic benefit.

Some would say the downside of this bamboozling of weak leaders, inept governments, limp bureaucrats and a lazy public is that in corrupting the fundamental principles of science these lab-coated thugs have created an environment where all of us have to be over-skeptical of real science – even science practiced ethically and correctly. 

If governments were enticed to spend taxpayer money based upon an intentional fraud…that’s not a political act, it’s a conspiracy to commit a crime. It is probably even treasonous in its most liberal definition (small L liberal). And those who act as accessories after the fact are no less guilty.

It is worse than that. The damage is FAR worse than unwarranted skepticism of legitimate science.

Now political and economic entities know that “science” can be bought. Science USED to be considered as the impartial arbitrator in all disputes. Now everyone knows the “ref” can be bought off. Want to impose a tax? Buy off a scientist to support your position. Want to create benefit for one group of people over another? Have a thug-intist invent a data/study to “scientifically” support your position.

Want to exterminate Jews? Have a scientist paid to create a study that purports that their inter-breeding with the general population is dangerous. After all, this position is backed up by a “scientist”. Warm up the ovens.

Again, it’s not about having a hypothesis and finding out that it can’t be verified. It’s about hiding the truth from the public, while taking their money in a scheme to deprive them of the truth that is the evil here.

Slandering anyone who points out the fraud is equally despicable and multiplies the bad intent. 

Birther. Truther. Global Warming Denier. Republican. It's all the same to these folks.

Unless the scientific community is willing to do some major house cleaning and serious introspection, research is fast on its way to becoming nothing but a propaganda tool. And those with the deepest pockets, especially the government and corporations, will determine what science is and what it is not.

It’s not that good scientists are never wrong in the science…that’s how science gets better.

It’s when bad scientists are wrong in the ethics. That’s how science gets destroyed.

Investing 101 - the Warren Buffett Method

A good buddy of mine tipped me off on this topic, so I thought I would muse on it.

Warren Buffett. The Oracle of Omaha. The guy that wants to pay more taxes. The most successful investor in the world. (Doesn't know capital gains from income - but hey, I guess he has people that worry about that for him!) Doesn't carry a cell phone or have a computer at his desk.

Noted philanthropist and frugal spendthrift, Buffett drives an older model sedan, nothing flashy - and a big treat for him is going out to the local DQ for a cone. Lives in the same house on the same street as he has for 50 years. Plays bridge for fun. Frugality all the way.

So given his business acumen, his obvious ability to judge character and business competence - why on earth would he want to "give" more money to gov't? Is it a good "investment"?

I mean would you invest your money in a company that has no control over it's spending? Has a temporary, part-time board of directors (elected officials) made up of buffoons and blowhards that have no experience in running a business? Creates ponzi schemes to inflate revenue projections?(Medicare), has at least 500 bosses? (Congress and Senate), cannot focus on one line of business, has not adhered to a budget or even a budget process in over 200 years?

Makes ALL decisions via committee? Has had special deals with their "suppliers" (unions and public sector unions) that grossly inflate the cost of input items in return for a kickback (promise of votes)?Whose stock price (currency value) has plummeted almost 50% despite having a monopoly in their market segment? Has shoddy and suspect accounting practices? Wastes, or just plain misplaces, billions if not trillions of dollars per year of investor funds?

Would this be the kind of investment that a prudent, rational, experienced business legend like Buffett would advocate putting his own money in? Would you put YOUR own money into it?

I'm not competent enough to even carry Buffett's Dairy Queen tray, but Warren - stay away from this turkey. There is no upside to this investment. Try something less risky.

 Like slot machines. You might at least enjoy money well wasted. Might be more fun than bridge.