Teachers on Strike

Should teachers have the right to strike?
Basically, that is the question being posed in the Judy's Jewels blog entry Prohibit Teachers Strike? in which she also has linked to Senate Bill #264 that proposes to change the present collective bargaining laws in the State of Ohio.
I ask another question to those that believe teachers should not be allowed to strike. If teachers should not be allowed to strike, then why should any group of employees be allowed to strike? Why should some unions be allowed to strike but not all unions? Why should there be a doulble standard? Don't give me this taxpayer crap, either. Whether we pay taxes or we purchase goods and services in private industry, we all are paying the cost of goods and services. Any increase in costs always gets passed down to us either in our role as taxpayer or our role as customer or consumer.
And by the way, I know of NO UNION that really desires to strike. That is always the very last resort and almost always comes about when the employer (private or public) refuses to bargain in good faith. After all, the workers' very livlihoods depend on that paycheck. Why would any employee purposely and without just cause desire to throw that to the wind? It seems to me that we should hold employers, including Boards of Education, more accountable than what is generally the case.
Maybe the elected officials and their appointed public administrators and managers as well as corporate CEOs and their managers should be removed from their positions whenever they do not bargain in good faith with their employees.
Or maybe, we should just return to the days of slavery, serfdom, indentured servants, sweat shops, substandard wages, inhumane working conditions, and the like!
What say you?

By the way, Roland's Ramblings has an entry you may wish to read entitled American Labor Unions.

Run Government Like A Business

How many times have I heard people say we should run our government like a business? Actually, I hear it quite often.
Okay, if we run our government like a business, then would not the following also be applicable?
Elected officials as like private industry CEOs should be paid salaries in the millions of dollars. Top governmental employees as like private top managers should be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Line staff governmental employees should be paid minimum wage as is paid to many employees in private business enterprises.
The personal lives, financial interests, assets and liabilities, sexual orientation, religious and philosophical beliefs, lives of family members, etc. of all persons in government should be private as it is for those in the private business world.
Just as private corporations stop pouring money into financially losing business activities and enterprises, so should governmental agencies stop giving money to financially losing convention centers, stadiums, arenas, airports, zoos, museums, libraries, public television and radio, senior centers and community centers, etc.
Rather than assessing and collecting taxes for services and programs that benefit individuals or certain groups of people, charge user fees to those specific consumers in amounts that would pay the full costs of providing the goods and services. That would include such things as roadway construction and use, mass transit and individual transportation systems, schools and colleges, school breakfast and lunch programs, libraries, parks and recreation, fire and rescue services, refuse and garbage collection, snow removal, leaf collection, job training and vocational rehabilitation, senior centers, senior nutrition programs, Medicare, and so on and so forth.
Close down any governmental agency that is not financially self-sufficient just like private businesses close up when they are not generating revenue of an amount to be self-supporting. That would include such governmental agencies as driver license and auto title bureaus, dog wardens, public prison systems, government-operated job placement offices, records bureaus, food and environmental health inspection operations, Social Security, and more.
Practice the “free enterprise” system and let the marketplace determine its own needs and future; and therefore, eliminate tax abatements for private businesses, enterprise zones, business tax credit programs, cost-free or subsidized provision of infrastructures to private businesses, wage subsidy programs, and other corporate ‘welfare’ activities.
The above scenarios are just a few areas that are applicable in my opinion of having government operate as a business would be operated. Some may or may not be good applications. My thinking is that it depends on each situation; because, I tend to adhere to the situational management approach.
However, if we take the whole subject as a whole and say it is all or none, do you really think government should be run like a business?
Please feel free to share your thoughts on this issue.

Roland Hansen: Loose Cannon?

Not too long ago, a person with whom I had worked in a partisan political organization many years ago but whom I had not seen in ages contacted me to request some advice and assistance in a specific political matter involving the 2007 election campaign of another individual. It was the first time since our association those many years ago that I had heard from that individual, who had relocated way back when and had not informed me of whence that person had gone.
None-the-less, I was pleased to hear from that individual and was hopeful that our once close working relationship and friendship would be renewed. When I was contacted for help I gladly delivered, even though the individual had informed me that the word within the specific partisan political circle in which the assistance was requested was that I was considered a loose cannon.
Loose Cannon - that was the phrase used to describe me and was the reason given why the other individual who was seeking elective office had not contacted me direct. No further information was provided me about the “loose cannon” label; I was not told who was using that phrase to describe me, nor was I informed of how many persons may have been using the phrase. “Oh, well” I said to myself at the time and proceeded to assist as requested. After all, I enjoy that type of thing; people are people and think whatever they want; and I believed in the “cause” being presented.
Whatever. I did my political thing and helped the long-time acquaintance that had contacted me last summer and helped the person seeking elective office. Consequently, the candidate was successful in being elected and has since been sworn into office.
I still do not know exactly what was or is meant by the use of the phrase “loose cannon” to describe me. However, I interpret the phrase to mean “a person who looses composure and goes off in tangential directions in an attack mode without regard to facts and concurrently losing focus on intended goals to the detriment of the intended goals.”
Here is the definition of “loose cannon” that I found in the Encarta World English Dictionary: “someone who behaves unpredictably or indiscreetly, often causing trouble for colleagues or associates (slang).”
Incidentally, I have not heard from the person who was elected since the night of the election. Nor did I hear again from the long-time acquaintance who had initially contacted me and with whom I had hoped to renew a friendship UNTIL the past week when that individual contacted me as a result of a public comment I have made about the elected official.
Hmmm. Now that I think of it, I guess I can figure out what “they” (whoever THEY may all be) meant in saying I am a loose cannon! My new interpretation of “loose cannon” as used by the politicos in describing me is as follows: A person who doesn’t “toe the line” regardless of principles, who is not a “yes person” and does not blindly follow the “leader” without regard to individual thought, who does not “go along to get along” for the sake of selfish convenience and expediency, who does not speak or act in a less-than-honest manner in order to obtain personal advantage or to the benefit of a special interest group, and who does not “play the game” for the political advancement of self or of another without consideration of the best interests of the community as a whole.
If that is what “they” mean by using the term “loose cannon” in describing me, then I am proud to be a loose cannon! Gee, it’s no wonder I have not gone further in partisan elective politics!

Lindsay Webb: The Broken Promise

It’s a brand new year; and, it’s a new City Council in Toledo, Ohio. At the organizational meeting held on January 2, 2008, a new President of Council was selected as a result of the newest DIRT.
Having just taken office as one of the three newest members of city council, Democrat Lindsay Webb joined Independent D. Michael Collins and Republican Tom Waniewski, the other newest members of Toledo City Council (DIRT), in a coup d'etat, albeit a nonviolent and legal one) by voting to toss out Michael Ashford as President of Council and by voting to install Mark Sobczak as the new President of Council. The vote of these three DIRT members along with the concurrence of three veteran councilpersons (Republican George Sarantou, former Democrat/now Republican Betty Shultz, and Democrat Mark Sobczak) and the opposing vote of six Democrats (Michael Ashford, Wilma Brown, Phil Copeland, Mike Craig, Joe McNamara, and Frank Szollosi) resulted in a tie vote. The tie vote allowed the Democrat/former Independent/former Republican Toledo Mayor (more DIRT) Carty Finkbeiner to cast the deciding vote.
Read this newspaper report of the upheaval on Toledo City Council.
Is this more politics as usual in Toledo?
And what of Lindsay Webb, the new councilperson who is also an attorney? She had promised to vote for Michael Ashford. Has anyone ever heard the phrase breach of promise?
Why did Lindsay Webb make a promise, and then break her promise? Could it have anything to do with new additional information or some type of political deal or something else entirely?
I may or may not agree with the ultimate decision on the selection of Toledo City Council, but that is of no concern to me.
Actually, the answer to the question of why Lindsay Webb broke her promise is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. A promise is a promise is a promise.
There is a question that always enters my mind when confronted with a situation involving anyone who has broken a promise:
What other promises that have been made in the past or that might be made in the future will be broken?