Unions: Private Sector and Public Sector

This entry was a letter to the editor in July 2011, before public awareness of the problem of unfunded pensions in many US cities.

All workers employed by private corporations and by state, local, and federal governments should have the right to form unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. The question is whether both groups of workers should have collective bargaining rights on the same matters, such as wages, benefits, and work rules. Should there be a difference and why?

At present, there 7.4 million private sector unionized workers. They typically work for corporations that are owned by a small number of persons or a large number of stockholders. These corporations must make a profit for their owners or stockholders, and they do this by providing a product or service that appeals to customers, who may be other corporations or individual consumers. One of the things that corporations do to be competitive and profitable is to keep their labor costs as low as possible; this may be done with labor-replacing technology, by getting workers to be more productive, or by getting them to work for lower wages and benefits. One source of profits for corporations comes from the labor power of workers that is embodied in their product or service, and which has greater value when the product or service is delivered than the wages paid to create the product or service. The greater value can be viewed as the basis of exploitation of workers, because it motivates owners  to maximize their profits  by paying the least amount of wages and benefits. Profit maximization is also the source of the fundamental dispute between workers and owners.

In the case of workers and private corporations it is therefore essential that workers form unions to serve as a form of countervailing power in their relations with employers. It is also essential that workers have the right to bargain collectively concerning their wages, benefits, and job security. Also important for collective bargaining--but not as essential as wages benefits and security--are work rules governing such things as job assignments, work breaks, and safety conditions. In collective bargaining agreements workers often "give up" control over work rules in order to get more favorable wages and benefits, or they may do the reverse.

Workers in the public sector are employed in jobs that deliver "public goods" such as public education, police and fire protection, and infrastructure maintenance. Public sector organizations are not "owned" and therefore have no need to deliver a profit to owners or stockholders. Managers of public sector organizations must demonstrate cost-effective delivery of services, which may be determined by citizen satisfaction and student achievements.

In the case of public sector organizations it is essential that workers have union representation to collectively bargain over work rules and job security. But the right to collectively bargain wages and benefits is a problem for two reasons. First, public sector workers cannot point to the "profits" earned by their organizations and therefore their right to a greater share of those profits in the form of increased wages and benefits. There are no owners or stockholders who are "greedy" because they want to keep a larger share of profits. Second, the ultimate source of money for wages and benefits is taxpayers who have little opportunity to influence how wages and benefits are established. This is often done by elected officials at the local, state, or federal level, and unlike owners or stockholders,
they do not bear the cost of the wages or benefits that are approved. Public officials create an  "exchange" with public sector unions, and they provide the pensions in the hope of receiving votes or campaign contributions. This cannot be considered exploitation because both parties benefit.  But it can be considered exploitation of the third-party taxpayer whose voice is not heard but who bears the cost of the exchange. This exchange may be unethical but it is not illegal. Union advocates also point out that it is possible that the politician-union exchange may benefit third party taxpayers in the form of better wages and benefits for most workers, but that is difficult to demonstrate.

When elected officials provide better wages and benefits for public sector union workers than are enjoyed by private sector unions or non-union workers, they create division, mistrust, and anger among working Americans that is directed at other workers rather than at the elected officials responsible for the inequities. The disparities in the wages and benefits of union and non-union workers and the disparities in the wages and benefits of private sector unions and public sector unions must be addressed and remedied.

What can be done? We must begin by focusing on pensions. First, we propose that each state, or cluster of states, create a commission to develop proposals to establish pension equity between public and private sector union workers in their state or region. The goal would be to have all workers in a state under the same pension plan, meaning that they would contribute the same percentage of their earnings to their pension plan. The commission would present their proposal for discussion in  a variety of public venues around the state seeking citizen involvement and response. The commission would also report to the public the pension plan currently enjoyed by elected state and local officials; this would provide the public with a basis for comparison of plans for workers and officials. Building upon what is learned form citizen involvement, the commission would develop a revised proposal which would be submitted to voters in the form of a referendum. Second, we propose the formation of a national commission to examine the pensions enjoyed by all federal employees, elected or appointed, with he goal of establishing an equitable pension plan across all local, state, and federal employees. The focus should be on the percentage of income that is contributed by all employees/officials, the expected benefit to be received, and the start time and duration of the expected pension benefit.

After establishing guidelines for pension benefits for public and private sector workers, appointed government employees, and elected government officials, it will be possible to speak of pension plans as being fair. Perhaps this public effort at transparency and fairness in the rules of the game regarding pensions will spread by giving Congress and the administration in Washington the courage to raise taxes and means-test benefits for all those earning more than $100,000 a year. And who knows what might be next: a wealth tax, a new tax on companies that shift jobs abroad, and a tax on corporate earnings from overseas operations. This could be the beginning of an effort to reduce the levels of income and wealth inequality created over the last 40 years and recreating hope for all Americans. 

Spying on Americans, Before Computers

In the 1983-1984 academic year, a Purdue professor taught a special course entitled 1984. The purpose of the course was to evaluate the predictions made in the classic novel 1984 by George Orwell, a prophetic account of government repression and totalitarianism. Among the topics covered in the course were the Big Brother techniques of spying on its citizens. During the time of the novel, computers did not exist at today's level, so the techniques of spying were based on human-based surveillance. In the course 1984, the class read and discussed available literature on what was then known about government-led spying on citizens. Several members of the class could not believe the reports in the literature about the very large number of files reported to be held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, estimated at the time at 50 million. The class concluded that the sheer number of reported FBI files could not be based on real "enemies" but they had to be files developed on categories of persons in certain sensitive positions, like scientists, journalists, and maybe even teachers. The professor in the class told the students that he would try a real-life test by sending a request to the FBI requesting his file, and see what that produced.

A letter to the FBI was sent, and there was no response. The course was soon over and everyone had forgotten about the real-life "test" of who might be spying on Americans.. Then on March 13, 1984, the professor received a letter from the FBI stating that they had a "main file" on him which consisted of 20 pages, of which 15 pages were either "blacked out" or withheld under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. Material from the file that was available for view included newspaper articles about the professor's research activities and campus activities. The professor filed several appeals for additional information, and discovered nearly a year later that his file had expanded to 32 pages and that he was now suspected of being a threat to U.S. security and of having ties to the Communist Party.

The recent revelations about the computer-internet driven efforts by the National Security Agency to obtain records on all Americans is just another example of government spying on their citizens. It is likely that all governments spy on their citizens, but they may do so with different degrees  of subtlety and technological sophistication. The only protection that citizens have against the more or less repressive activities of government is the courage of whistleblowers, a vigilant press, and an engaged citizenry that says "no more."

Obama and Diversity?

We are troubled by the recent attacks on the Obama administration for the lack of diversity in the president's cabinet and other high-level appointments. We believe the criticism is unfair, as a cursory examination of President Barack Obama's high-level appointments reveals the following.

Overall: seven rich males and five rich females. Of these 12 rich males and rich females, two are rich Roman Catholics, two are rich Jews, three are rich Protestants, one is a rich Portuguese-American, one is a rich Japanese-American, one is a rich Dominican-American, one is a rich African-American, and one is a rich mixed northern European-American.

Now we ask you, is this not diversity?

Privatization?

We are liberal-left types across a wide range of issues, but we are also sociologists who care about precision in thought and language and the importance of data-based arguments. Thus, we are often at odds with colleagues who allow their ideological views to overwhelm their use of precise language and the need for data to support their views. Let us take the case of the term "privatization" which has wide useage but has re-surfaced in our community in connection with a new university president who was known for his past support of efforts to transfer government-based programs to the private sector, that is, privatization. So, we ask the following questions about privatization and would welcome responses and suggestions of things to read.

(1) What does the term mean with regard to specific social and economic practices and programs undertaken by government with taxpayer funds?

(2) What are some specific cases of pre-privatization practices and costs, and post-privatization practices and costs; for example, state owned and operated toll roads versus privatized toll roads.

(3) What are the benefits and costs of any case of a privatized government program? Who wins and loses what in the transition?

(4) What are the short term and long term projections about public and private options for useful public services? Are there limits to privatization or is the practice likely to expand?

(5) Is it important to make a distinction between the actions of local, state, and federal government with regard to costs and benefits of privatization?

In short, we would welcome a discussion of the exact meaning and costs of privatization.

The Arrest and Trial of an FBI Agent

In the turbulent 60s there was a local FBI agent who was assigned to the campus area. He was reputed to have been an Olympic-class runner in college. One of his responsibilities was to monitor protest and demonstration activities on campus. Several student members of SDS claimed that they had been told by the Agent that if they continued their activism he would contact their draft boards and try to change their draft status.

At an informal meetings of SDS members it was concluded that the Agent was infringing on free speech rights and the right to engage in public protest. There was general agreement that there should be a people's arrest of the Agent and that he should be tried in a people's court. This may sound bizarre today, but in the moment there was extensive discussion of participatory democracy and the need for people to confront established authority because it was held to be corrupt.

A plan was developed. A member of SDS would contact the Agent saying he wanted to talk with him about his activism and wanted to avoid any change in his draft status. He would offer to meet the Agent in the Sweet Shop in the Union building. The plan was that when the Agent sat down with the student other SDS members who were already in the Sweet Shop would swarm over the Agent and bring him to the lawn in front of the Union where a trial would be held. The plan went awry. The Agent came to the door of the Sweet Shop but would not enter because he didn't like the look of things. He turned and started to walk away and the remaining SDS students went after him. The agent exited the east door of the Union and proceeded to run north on Grant Street. Students gave chase but the Agent's alleged running prowess became a reality and there was no way that anyone was going to catch him.

The activists were discouraged but they decided to proceed with the trial with the the defendent in absentia. About 20 people gathered on the originally designated spot and the trial proceeded. The prosecutor was Don and the judge was Robert Perrucci. There is no memory of a defense attorney, but the jury consisted of all present. Witnesses described the Agent's attempts to harrass and intimidate them. The judge asked for a decision by a show of hands. The decision was unanimous: guilty!

ADDENDUM: Correction

There is a correction to this account of the arrest and trial of the FBI Agent. We uncovered a story in the local newspaper about this event. It reports about 100 persons at a "people's tribunal." and lists Robert Perrucci as chairman of the jury that issued the verdict. There is no mention of Don, but Jeff is mentioned. The account of the Sweet Shop incident in the newspaper matches the above account in general, but there is no mention of the foot race on Grant Street with the swift Agent.

In the search for the article on the "people's tribunal" we also uncovered a newspaper article and a photo of Robert and Carolyn at the base of the steps of the Executive building as 135 Black students are placing the bricks on the steps. Homer is prominent in the article as a spokeperson for the group.

Sometimes memory and data work together, but memory is a questionable source without supporting evidence. See Robert's article with Beth on the "Social Structure of Memory" in the International Journal of Contemporary Sociology. 

USMC and ME

Today is Robert's birthday. Yesterday was the birthday of the United States Marine Corp. Somehow I think the connection of birthdays is more than coincidence. In 1951, Robert entered the Marine Corps. They took an unfocused, drifting, high school drop-out and gave him self-confidence and a belief that he could control his own life. Then the government finished the job by providing him with the means (GI Bill) to use his new ambition to do something with his life.

Robert wouldn't be where he is today without the USMC and the GI Bill. His second chance began with his newly-discovered blend of personal initiative and responsibility, but those individual qualities wouldn't have meant much without the GI Bill. So Obama and Romney were both half right, but as always, the truth is often at the Golden Mean.

ONE DAY

This was sent to a seminar on December 14, 2010.

This is a call to action. The message of ONE DAY is simple. It is a call to working people of America to take one day a week in which they and their family members will re-take control of their lives. On that ONE DAY, say a Wednesday, all will refrain from watching TV or using any electronic device such as a cell phone, computer, ipod, smart phone, and the like, unless use of such technology is required by one's employment. For that ONE DAY, through acts of self-discipline and self-denial, we will regain our humanness, for we will be beyond the reach of media, corporations, advertising, and politicians. ONE DAY declares that this act of self-discipline is the beginning of how to empower people through their recognition of a common bond regardless of the numerous differences that, we are told constantly, divide us.

What should people do on this ONE DAY with their new benefit of having more time? The possibilities are endless, but they could include solitary activities like reading a book or starting a new hobby. They could also involve joining an existing community group that one has read about and found interesting. Or they could start new community groups with neighbors, focusing on their concerns and their ideas for creating better lives and better communities. The possibilities are endless, but they will emerge from the concerns and interests of people living their daily lives and facing common uncertainty about the future.

This is not a call to eliminate electronic technology, but to make it work for us in ways that deal with our concerns. The call of ONE DAY is especially important to the tens of millions of young Americans who feel empowered by the electronic technology because it provides ties to others beyond the prying eyes of adults. But beware, because unless you take control of the nano-world you will become an insignificant click in a wired world that will control you from cradle to grave.