The "Union" Myth

Now let me get this straight - unions are good, they "rise up" middle class workers - which middle class workers? Unions argue that they need collective bargaining to increase the pay and benefits for workers. The operative word here is "collective". Maybe in the short term that is the case but in the long term unionism breeds mediocrity and individual incentive and lines the pockets of union organizers who spend union money trying to get Democrats elected to protect their power base.

Just as the Democrats (Progressives) are champions of "income redistribution", I contend that unionization is nothing more than redistribution of performance and productivity. Let's look at two hypothetical examples - two high schools:

Let's call the first high school 'Strickland High'. Teachers are non-unionized and they keep their job based strictly on their performance. The better performing teachers get the highest pay.

Let's call the second high school 'Obama High'. The teachers are unionized, they get paid strictly based on their seniority not their performance, and after a few years they get tenure and cannot be fired.

I believe that in any group of teachers, some will be above average, some will be below average, but there will probably be one great teacher and one complete loser. At Strickland High, before long the loser will be fired and replaced with a better teacher and the great teacher will get a raise in pay thus increasing the overall performance and morale at the school.

At Obama High the union will protect all the teachers' jobs, so the "loser" will quickly become a "union man" knowing that his job is secure and his pay and benefits are the same as everyone else with his seniority. But over time a natural thing starts happening at Obama High. The great teacher gets frustrated because she busts her butt trying to be the best teacher, while getting little more recognition than the loser.

In the meantime Strickland High, not satisfied with another one of their low performing teachers, fires him and hires the frustrated "great teacher" from Obama High resulting in further increasing the performance of the teachers group at Strickland High and at the same time lowering the performance of the unionized teachers group at Obama High.

So as this pattern continues over time, the performance of the teachers group at Strickland High continues to improve, the performance of the students continues to improve, and the parents are waiting in line to get their children enrolled. While at the same time the unionized, tenured teachers at Obama High plug along, knowing their job is secure and they cannot be fired. While at the same time, the high performers at Obama High get frustrated and leave to work in an environment like Strickland High where individual performance is rewarded.

Obama High then slowly becomes one of our typical low performing schools with teachers ready to protest if anyone threatens their situation, while the parents of the Obama High students complain and wonder why their kids under-perform, fail in science and math, and can hardly read or write a proper sentence.

Which school system do you want your children to attend?

The Entitlement Bandwagon

OK I confess; I listen to Rush Limbaugh from time to time. The other day the subject was "redistribution of income". And of course this is a pillar in the divide between Democrats and Republicans - if you are obtaining wealth why shouldn't you give some of it back to those less fortunate? And who can argue with that.

But there is a difference between charity to help your fellow human being get through a tough period, or to recover from a disaster, and giving them an on-going "entitlement". It is an indisputable fact that Americans are the most charitable people in the world. But why are any of us, even if we are poor, "entitled" to share in the success of people who by virtue of hard work (and sometimes luck) have obtained a certain amount of wealth. Doesn't the tax system take care of that? Last year almost 50% of Americans paid no federal income tax, while the top earners paid 36% of their income to the federal government - isn't that redistribution of income - after all someone has to pay for our bloated government services.

But for Democrats (and now they call themselves Progressives?), that is not enough.

On this Rush Limbaugh program, a woman called in and she said it was her "right" to receive a portion of the income that "rich" people get; "I live in the hood, and we need to be taken care of". That is a serious problem in this country - "entitlement" vs. short term help when people really need it. We all face obstacles in our lives, and quite often need help until we get our feet on the ground; that is not an entitlement.

But the entitlement mentality has become a disease in this country. No longer do people look for help to get through a tough period - for some it has become a way of life and in many cases for generations.

I believe every human being starts out in life with a desire to "achieve"...it's human nature. That desire to achieve may take many forms - provide a good home for your family, or a successful career, or in some cases driving ambition to achieve great things. The goal doesn't matter, but the desire to achieve is something that is natural to all of us.

But provide a person "something for nothing" for any length of time and that desire to achieve slowly dies out and they become a "dependent". Some believe the Democrats/Progressives want a dependent society as the only way they can retain power. I can't believe they would be so sinister, but one thing is indisputable, after spending trillions of dollars, the "Great Society" and every other entitlement program in history has failed. The poverty level is the same today as it was 50 years ago and some people are mired in a lifetime of despair and dependency.

I really believe that woman who called Rush had been a potential "achiever" at one time if she had the incentive to do so, but because of a lifetime and maybe even a generational history of entitlements, she now just wants to be "taken care of"...how sad.