GOP: Poor Excuses and Paucity of Empathy

By all accounts the Graham-Cassidy+Heller version of health care destruction would yield a net coverage reduction for 243,000 Nevadans. Overall it would mean a 31% cut in Medicaid for children — that’s right — children.  There’s another 15% cut for services for people with disabilities.  And what’s the rationale for this atrocity?

(1) Because we promised!  This is probably the silliest reason to do anything ever.  I may have promised to offer someone a ride to go shopping, but if there’s a blizzard on the way then it’s downright stupid to “keep the promise.”

(2) Because Obamacare is failing!  And why would that be? Because Republicans refused to make some simple fixes (risk corridors, risk sharing, and reinsurance) and the individual health insurance is unstable.  It’s a classic case of tossing the baby out with the bathwater.  Or, of finding some perfectly “fixable” problems with a law and using those to rationalize pitching the entire thing.  Head UP: They’ll try this same approach with the financial sector reforms in the Dodd Frank Act.

And then there’s the part the Republicans aren’t talking about.

(3) Because they’ve wanted to get rid of Medicaid, Medicare, and to privatize Social Security from time out of mind.

This comment sums up the situation:

“The two keys to the Republican attitude are money and ideology. If you view the modern G.O.P. as basically a mechanism to protect the wealthy, Medicaid is an obvious target for the Party. The program caters to low- and middle-income people, and its recent expansion was financed partly by an increase in taxes on the richest households in the country.”

The concept can’t be articulated more simply or directly.

Then there are the sputtered talking points, common among Republican politicians and supporters to hike around the obvious but unspoken issues they have with the Affordable Care Act.

If we don’t pass this we’ll have socialized medicine.  Please.  Even Single Payer (or Medicare for all) isn’t socialized medicine.  Medicare insurance is used to pay PRIVATE providers for medical treatment.  This obviously isn’t a nationalized medical service plan.  Only by artificially conflating medical insurance with medical services can anyone assert that this is “socialism.”

There are no guarantees in life.  So if a family in Minnesota who has a child with muscular dystrophy may be required to pay higher premiums that’s the way the markets work.  It doesn’t get more morally bankrupt than this — especially since the current system does guarantee coverage for families with chronically ill children.

This issue is long past being a public policy issue, it has devolved into pure politics in which ‘points’ are scored by a party desperately hoping to cut taxes for its most generous donors at the cost of Americans’ health care.

So, every few weeks we’ll have to call our Senators to beg them not to destroy the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid for ourselves, our families, our friends, our neighbors, and our fellow citizens.

Call Senator Heller at his Las Vegas Office 702-388-6605; his Reno Office 775-686-5770; or his DC Office 202-224-6244. 

You may also want to call Senator Cortez-Masto to thank her for her support of health care access for Nevadans. 202-224-3542; 702-388-5020; 775-686-5750.

Advertisements

Comments Off on GOP: Poor Excuses and Paucity of Empathy

Filed under Health Care, health insurance, Heller, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics

It’s Official: GOP Hates Women — Scamcare Edition

In case there’s anyone left who thinks the Republican Party is representing the needs of women in this country, the contradiction is right in front of us in the form of the Graham-Cassidy+Heller (tagging along) bill.

Amy Friedrich-Karnik, senior federal policy adviser at the Center for Reproductive Rights, pointed to a statistic from progressive think tank the Century Foundation that estimates 13 million women will lose access to maternity care services if the ACA is repealed. Friedrich-Karnik explained that the bill also blocks Medicaid patients from using Planned Parenthood, which bars access to essential preventative care like birth control, cancer screenings, and STD testing and treatment. “It also slashes Medicaid overall and into the future, and so really impacting particularly low-income women and women of color who rely on Medicaid broadly for their health care,” she said. According to the Kaiser Health Network, Medicaid pays for nearly half of all births in America and covers family planning services for 13.5 million women. [Jez]

Not only is the bill a golf ball shot to the back of the head for Nevada women, it could cost the state some $250 million in funding:

Specifically, the proposal would eliminate the marketplace subsidies and federal dollars that states that chose to opt-in to Medicaid expansion under the ACA, like Nevada, currently receive, replacing them with block grants to be doled out to states, which would be left with the responsibility of deciding how to spend that money. It also converts almost the entire Medicaid program to a per capita cap, under which the federal government would set a limit on how much it reimburses states per enrollee, and allows states to waiver certain provisions from the ACA that require insurance companies to cover certain services and bars them from placing annual or lifetime caps on coverage. [NVInd]

Got that? Nevada gets a per capita cap, AND insurance corporations could refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, maternity care, family planning, women’s health care services, AND the corporations could revert to that wonderful old scam — the lifetime limit on coverage.  This isn’t as bad as the former “skinny” bill — it’s worse.

Senator Heller might have wanted to give this version some thought before he inked his name on the paperwork to co-sponsor the bill, but he didn’t.

It’s understandable that Nevadans are tiring of calling, writing, and sign making, but if Republicans are nothing else they are persistent.  They’re counting on public apathy, ignorance, and fatigue.  Not this time. Not on American health care. Not on our watch.

Senator Heller’s Washington DC office number is 202-224-6244.  Calls are tallied, and at some point the number of calls opposing this iteration of scam-care needs to impinge on the amount of money Republicans are counting on from the Koch Brothers and other right wing radicals.

Comments Off on It’s Official: GOP Hates Women — Scamcare Edition

Filed under Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Medicaid, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics

This Isn’t Normal And We Can’t Let It Be

In 1830 the United States had a total population of 12,806,702 spread among 24 states. New York City was our largest urban area with 202,589 people, Baltimore was second with 80,620. [Cen]  There was nothing about the American economy, which lurched from crisis to crisis during the 1830s, that would cause European powers to see the US as a power player:

“During this time, English traders could not collect on their sales in America, and many of them went bankrupt. Cotton mills closed in England, and American planters saw their markets disappear. By the summer of 1837, business was paralyzed, and it was not until the early 1840s that a semblance of confidence in business was restored.” [RU.edu]

We’re not, obviously, in the same category as we were 180 years ago, but we aren’t on the trajectory we were following a matter of months ago.   This, for Americans, isn’t normal.  Out of the economic and social debris of the American Civil War came an industrial nation,  fully prepared to compete with European nations, far ahead of some nations in terms of industrialization, financial markets (not that we were free from speculation and its results), and growing into importance as a world leader.  After booms and busts, periods of isolationism and nativism, and two world wars the US emerged as a super-power.  By 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower could say,”Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America.” [NA]

Former General Eisenhower had another line which should resonate with us today: “Now I think, speaking roughly, by leadership we mean the art of getting someone else to do something that you want done because he wants to do it, not because your position of power can compel him to do it, or your position of authority.”  [NA]

A Quick Review 

Other presidents following in this tradition sought to use American leadership in this manner.  President Kennedy’s foreign policy problems were legion, but he did manage to take a step towards arms control in the Limited Test Ban Treaty.  Lyndon Johnson’s presidency is associated with the Vietnam War, however during his tenure the US negotiated the Outer Space Treaty with the Soviet Union and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  President Nixon followed through with the SALT talks and the ABM Treaty.  President Gerald Ford signed the Helsinki Accords.  President Carter is remembered for the Camp David Accords. President Reagan changed the SALT formula to the START format: Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, and the tension evident in 1983 ended with Reagan’s trip to Moscow toward the end of his term in office. President George H.W. Bush managed to steer a steady course when relations with China threatened to implode over Chinese reactions to popular demonstrations, and his careful commentary in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet-era regime in Germany is said to have mitigated the reaction of hardliners in Eastern Europe.  President Bill Clinton pursued what he called his Policy of Enlargement, i.e. a policy based on promoting democracy and human rights abroad.  President George Bush’s foray into Iraq has encumbered the US with several foreign policy challenges, as did Clinton’s failure to deal assertively with Rwanda, however it would be remiss to omit Bush’s initiatives to deal with global HIV/AIDS programs and treatment.  The presidency of Barack Obama included negotiations concerning climate change (Paris Accords) and the limitations on the Iranian weapons program.

However mixed the policies and results of American world leadership since the Eisenhower Administration one aspect has remained fairly constant.  Every president has sought to get someone else to do what we want because they want to do it.  This was normal American foreign policy.  Until now.

America First America Alone

The first speech was a clear signal:

“President Trump’s speech Friday will go down as one of the shorter inaugural addresses, but it will also be remembered for its populist and often dark tone.“From this day forward,” Trump said at one point, “it’s going to be only America first. America first.” Trump appears to have first used the phrase last March in an interview with The New York Times when he denied he was an isolationist. “I’m not isolationist, but I am ‘America First,’” he said. “So I like the expression. I’m ‘America First.’” [Atlantic]

He appears to understand the dark origins of the America First movement, but adds a transactional element to the implied isolationism:

“Not isolationist, but I am America First,” he said. “I like the expression.” He said he was willing to reconsider traditional American alliances if partners were not willing to pay, in cash or troop commitments, for the presence of American forces around the world. “We will not be ripped off anymore,” he said.”[NYT]

He may like the expression, but it is irrevocably associated with the infamous Lindbergh Speech delivered on September 11, 1941:

“The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.  Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.”

Putting America First, Lindbergh rushed past the fact that the British were  blitzed in the Summer and Fall of 1940, and the Jews were the subject of Nazi genocide.  His rationale was that neither the British nor the Jews were “American” and therefore they were promoting their interests at the expense of American interests.  At the time Lindbergh delivered his speech in Des Moines the British weren’t fighting for their empire — they were fighting for their existence; and, the Jews were fighting for their lives.  Given this context, the expression “America First” should have been assigned to the great trash heap of really bad phrases, however in Trumpian terms it’s a banner to be waved in front of our adversaries, and unfortunately our allies as well.  This isn’t normal.

Normal recognizes that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states an attack on one ally means an attack on all — no strings, no demands for payment, no second guessing — as when it was invoked after September 11, 2001 on behalf of the United States.  It is not normal to address a gathering of NATO allies and delete a reference to the article.

Normal recognizes that voluntary accords such as the Paris Climate Agreement aren’t binding, but do express the aspirations of the global community toward adopting policies and practices which do not impinge on the health of our shared planet.  It is not normal to unilaterally discard an agreement most of the changes to which (from the Kyoto version) were made at American insistence.

Normal recognizes that the deployment of U.S. forces around the world is a deterrent to adventurism and the disruption of financial and commercial functions in the global domain.  It is not normal to view these expenses as being “ripped off” by other nations.  It is truly beyond normal to decry these expenses and then advocate for a $700 billion increase in the U.S. military budget.

Normal recognizes that not everyone gets exactly what is wanted from any international agreement, but that small steps can often lead to greater improvements.  The SALT talks begat the START talks and the START talks begat a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  It is not normal to demand that the treaty with Iran contain precisely what the American government wants when it wants it — without securing international agreement as to the terms of the specific treaty.

Normal recognizes that it is necessary for a nation to be perceived as cooperative and willing to be held to one’s word.  It is not normal to have allies questioning whether or not the U.S. will sustain its support for NATO, cooperate with global initiatives on trade, health, and climate change, and keep its word concerning threats to global peace.

Normal recognizes that the foreign policy of other nations, such as Russia, is not in alignment with American interests.  Normal recognizes that the creation of a “Russian Century” is not in the best interest of the United States.  It is not normal to have an American president deny or try to minimize the significance of a Russian assault on American democratic practices and institutions.   It is not normal to have an American president omit reference to what is occurring in the Crimea, in Ukraine, and along the borders of western Europe.

The United States of America cannot allow the abnormal to become the new normal.

Comments Off on This Isn’t Normal And We Can’t Let It Be

Filed under Defense spending, energy policy, Foreign Policy, Politics

It’s Always About the Girls?

ESPN’s Jemele Hill posts her truth:  Donald Trump is a white supremacist.  What do we get from the lectern in the White House? This is a “fire-able offense.”  Hillary Clinton goes on her book tour.  What do we get?  She’s blaming every one but herself — when in fact she admits some 35 mistakes for which she took responsibility.  What does the occupant of the White House do?  He re-tweets a bit of anti-Semitic commentary with a GIF of Hillary Clinton being hit with a golf ball.  It would be tempting to oversimplify this, but there is a pattern:  Women being hit, women being fired, or women being otherwise assaulted or attacked is acceptable. There’s a word for this — misogynist.

These would be part of the background noise associated with the current administration, except that the misogyny is part of the administration’s policy, witness the Department of Education’s reversal of Title IX protections for those who report campus assaults.

“Perhaps it should come as no surprise that this latest undermining of survivors’ rights is taking place under the administration of a president who has bragged about sexually assaulting women. An administration in which the acting assistant secretary of education for civil rights, Candice Jackson, suggested, in July (she later apologized), that for “90 percent” of campus sexual assault allegations the complainants regretted having sex, but weren’t actually sexually assaulted.” [WaPo]

So, are we surprised that the Department of Education is dialing back the protections for assault survivors on college campuses?  If we are we shouldn’t be.  The signals have been there all along.

We couldn’t really miss the images of the President barging ahead out of a vehicle, leaving his wife to exit on her own, or the images of him climbing the steps to Air Force One again leaving his wife to mount the stairs without assistance.  Or, images of him holding the umbrella over his own head, leaving his wife to stride in his wake perhaps hoping to get some protection from the rain.  If he will treat his wife with this casual disregard, what can we expect of his attitude toward women he doesn’t know?  Why would we be surprised if he tweets a GIF showing a woman being hit by a golf ball?

So, what do Jemele Hill and Hillary Clinton have in common?  One’s black, the other is white.  One is an experienced politician, the other is a sportscaster and analyst.  One was born in 1975, the other married Bill Clinton in 1975.  One attended Michigan State University, the other attended Wellesley.  What makes them targets from the White House lectern?  They are women.

Comments Off on It’s Always About the Girls?

Filed under Politics, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Fastens Onto Public Funds For Private Schools

Nevada gubernatorial candidate Dan Schwartz has planted his pennon securely on the so-called “Educational Savings Account” hill.  [RGJ] Schwartz’s enthusiasm hasn’t waned even though ESAs are of highly questionable constitutionality.

“Schwartz, a Republican who currently holds the office of state treasurer, told reporters in Las Vegas while announcing his candidacy that, if elected, he would not sign any bills from the Legislature without first seeing an “acceptable” ESA bill on his desk.” [RGJ]

The ESA program failed to secure enough support for enhancement in the last session of the legislature, which instead enacted tax credits for scholarships.  The “school choice” advocates saw this as a blow to their advocacy goals — specifically to the proposition that private schools are ‘better’ than public ones.  Perhaps it’s time to review the issues raised by the opponents?

The narrative, as framed by the proponents, is that private education is (1) better and (2) parents should have a choice to send their children to private schools.  The first proposition is dubious.  Private schools do send more of their students to college, but the reason may well be (and often is) that the schools themselves are selective in the first place.  When considering NCES reports on achievement the following caveat is of extreme importance, which is why it is reprinted here in full:

“When interpreting the results from any of these analyses, it should be borne in mind that private schools constitute a heterogeneous category and may differ from one another as much as they differ from public schools. Public schools also constitute a heterogeneous category. Consequently, an overall comparison of the two types of schools is of modest utility. The more focused comparisons conducted as part of this study may be of greater value. However, interpretations of the results should take into account the variability due to the relatively small sizes of the samples drawn from each category of private school, as well as the possible bias introduced by the differential participation rates across private school categories.

There are a number of other caveats. First, the conclusions pertain to national estimates. Results based on a survey of schools in a particular jurisdiction may differ. Second, the data are obtained from an observational study rather than a randomized experiment, so the estimated effects should not be interpreted in terms of causal relationships. In particular, private schools are “schools of choice.” Without further information, such as measures of prior achievement, there is no way to determine how patterns of self-selection may have affected the estimates presented. That is, the estimates of the average difference in school mean scores are confounded with average differences in the student populations, which are not fully captured by the selected student characteristics employed in this analysis.”  (emphasis added)

Those “patterns of self-selection” are “not fully captured” when the results of testing are reported, or this can be stated as: How private schools select attendees and the population from which they are drawn leaves some wide open questions about the conclusions offered on the effectiveness of instruction in private vs. public schools.

Secondly, the notion that there is no “school choice” at present is misleading in itself.  There is school choice, any parent may send a child to a public school, a private school, or choose to home school — the question is who pays for this.  What the “choice advocates” are saying is that taxpayers should fund the choice of a family to send children to private schools. A tangential argument is often raised that we should ‘expand the number of families who can choose to send children to private schools.’  Left unspoken are some of the practical issues — private schools can limit their enrollment, and if enrollment is limited then what of that “choice” being offered to their parents? Unlike public schools, private ones may select who is accepted for enrollment.  The decision not to offer special educations services is essentially self-selective.  There are some rural areas in which private education at the elementary and secondary level is non-existent or very limited.  In these instances there are few if any choices to be had.  Previous posts, here and here have addressed this issue in more detail.  (See also “Testing Turmoil,” and more on Schwartz’s previous advocacy here.)

Schwartz appears ready to ride this well worn draft horse throughout the campaign season.  It has some appeal — to those who sincerely wish to provide a religiously based curriculum for their offspring as well as to those who sincerely wish their children didn’t have to attend schools with members of other communities with whom they have little in common.  Compared to the economy, taxation, and other more relevant issues, this isn’t usually at the top of any voter’s list of primary concerns and Schwartz’s selection of it is more dog whistle (to ultra-conservatives) than a bull horn to the majority of Nevada voters.

Comments Off on GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Fastens Onto Public Funds For Private Schools

Filed under education, nevada education, Nevada politics, Politics

Immigration Myths and Legends and NV gubernatorial candidates

Nevada Republicans apparently have managed to recruit not one but two profoundly flawed candidates for Governor — Dubious Dan Schwartz, author of an alternative budget so far out in right field it found itself in the parking lot, and Adam Laxalt, The Adelson candidate du jour.  AG Laxalt joins the bevy of Republican officials who find no reason to challenge the Trumpian decision on DACA.  Better still, he’s an associate of notorious ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio:

“To date, Laxalt has shown zero interest in protecting Nevada’s DREAMers. In 2015, Laxalt added the State of Nevada to a lawsuit opposing President Obama’s immigration executive action with the goal of deporting DREAMers and tearing immigrant families apart. Laxalt is currently scheduled to appear this month at an event with disgraced former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a criminal and notorious bigot who racially profiled Latinos in Arizona.”

Laxalt and Schwartz do illustrate the topics Republicans want to talk about — immigrants, tax cuts, and the wedgies (guns and gays.)   Let’s focus on immigration for the moment.  Nevadans have been treated to a surfeit of salacious “alternative facts” on DACA, and some of the myths appear to have taken hold.  DACA encouraged child migration! — No, it didn’t.  DACA beneficiaries have taken jobs away from Americans — only if one buys into the Lump of Labor Fallacy.  Nor do DACA beneficiaries cost the American taxpayers much of anything — they aren’t eligible for federal means tested welfare, Medicaid, health care tax credits, or anything else.   Republicans sputter that ending DACA will keep us safer — however DACA requires a background check, no felonies, no serious misdemeanors, and only 2,139 of the 800,000 beneficiaries have lost permits because of criminal activity. The handy plastic brains show this amounts to 0.267%. [WaPo]

Looming on the dark horizon of GOP visions is the ever present phantasmagorical presence of More Immigrants.  Interesting isn’t it, that the danger always comes from (1) Mexico or Central America, or (2) Muslims.  However, as of 2015 about 15% of green card recipients were from Mexico, 7% came from China, 6.1% from India, 5.4% from the Philippines, and 5.2% from Cuba. [CNN] [see also DHS]  Little notice is given to the 4,765,000 immigrants of European origin. [MPO]

Enter the other conversation Republicans don’t want to have — racism in all its systemic, institutional, and individual forms.  The ultimate exercise in otiosity is to attempt to get a Republican candidate to admit that beneath their rhetoric about immigration is a deep layer of good old fashioned prejudice and racism.  European immigrants are ‘productive,’ Central American immigrants are ‘gang members.’  European immigrants ‘take opportunities,’ while Central American immigrants ‘take jobs.’  European and Asian immigrants are hard working, but Central American ones are potential criminals — as if Russian and Chinese organized crime operations are minimized by excluding discussion of their activities.

Who were the gangsters associated with the following?

“The suspects (+30) also face charges of extortion, gambling, narcotics trafficking, wire fraud, credit card fraud, and identity theft, according to law enforcement sources. Some of the charges carry a maximum penalty of decades in prison.”

No, not from Mexico, Central America, not MS 13 — they’re members of Russian organized crime in NYC.   There was some mention about the Chinese immigrants attempting to enter the US without documentation last August 27th. [ChicagoABC] Not much, nor is much said about Chinese organized crime moving into south eastern Asia.  For coverage of Australian-Chinese cooperation interdicting drug trafficking in the area one has to head to Australian or Chinese news sources.  Lets guess that the latest 13 tons of drugs captured weren’t all destined for Sydney and Melbourne?

However, broadening the focus on criminal activity to include a more global perspective doesn’t serve the purposes of the anti-immigration far right in the US, which voraciously consumes any and all news of Mexican and Central American criminal activity while minimizing the capacity of Asian and Russian gangs and cartels to wreak havoc.

Thus far candidate Schwartz has demonstrated his capacity to parrot talking points from the Trickle Down Hoax book of imaginary economics, while Laxalt has aligned himself with the Arpaio clan (a word carefully chosen) of racists and bigots.  Both are flawed, and both leave room for a centrist Democrat to make an effective run for Governor.

Comments Off on Immigration Myths and Legends and NV gubernatorial candidates

Filed under Immigration, Nevada politics, Politics

Police Union Actions Imperil Public Sector Unions

I wrote a post on the subject of police union conduct and public relations last July, and it seems to be an appropriate time now to link back to it.  There was also a post on police accountability.

I’ll repeat for those who haven’t read those posts that I am a former public sector union member and former office holder in a public sector union.  I am not an opponent of public sector unions, and I am not fond of those who pile on the criticism when there’s bad publicity.  However, I am concerned that police union leaders are treading a fine line, which if crossed too often or too far will cause more harm to their associations than good.

We now have two more unfortunate examples of union leaders who are jeopardizing the effectiveness of their organizations:

(1) Philadelphia, PA — police union president calls members of Black Lives Matter a “rabid pack of animals,” after previously asserting a police officer’s Fatherland tattoo with an eagle was just a picture of a bird.

(2) Cleveland, OH — the police union doesn’t want to hold the flag because Cleveland Browns’ management supported players’ protest.

Why do these actions and announcements imperil public sector unions? Let me count the ways:

(1) There are those who don’t support public sector unions and these people would be ever so pleased to remove your capacity to negotiate wages, hours, and working conditions.  Police and Firefighters have been lucky thus far that many anti-union pieces of legislation have carved out exceptions for first responders — but make no mistake, if the criticism gets too vehement and too prolonged those exceptions will be more difficult to maintain.

(2) One of the most common arguments against public sector unions is that they “protect bad apples.”  This contention has been widely employed against teachers and other public sector employees.  By focusing on protecting individuals who have behaved badly instead of on the provisions of the contract the union leadership gives credence to these voices.  A pro-tip might be: If someone is about to hit you don’t hand them a bat.  There are times you might have to say, “We will defend the rights of Officer X, and help him present the best possible defense.”  Unspoken in this context is “we’ll help him present a defense if he can dream one up.” The less the personnel issue is “personalized” the more likely a positive outcome in the long run.

(3) Focus on what’s important.  Every union needs to focus on wages, hours, and working conditions.  The more the focus is extended into politics, social issues, religious controversies and other realms the less effective the union can be in improving those three basic elements.  Getting involved in local (or national) political controversies, such as the one in Cleveland, creates distractions and distractions create eventual problems at the bargaining table.

(4) Don’t forget you do work for the public.  That would be all the public, even the ones who don’t like or trust you. I once had a prolonged dialog with a person who offered an initial disparagement of public sector unions with a common generalization about “they are in it for themselves and not the public.”  My admission that I was a former public sector union member who agreed with some of the criticism and yet could provide a rationale for some rules and contract provisions was met with “you’re different.”  The more members of the general public can be convinced that “we” are mostly “different” and do not fit the convenient generalizations parroted by opponents the better.  However, taking sides isn’t helpful.

Another point should be emphasized.  No one would dream of allowing a nurse to refuse to treat a person because of the patient’s nation of origin.  That would be unconstitutional and a deprivation of the patient’s rights.  No one wants a teacher to refuse to assist a student who is a member of an ethnic minority, that too would be unconstitutional and a deprivation of rights.  No one wants a county clerk to register only members of one political party — that would be unconstitutional and a deprivation of rights. No one could imagine a firefighter refusing to rescue a person because the individual was a member of a particular religious faith.   So, how is it not unconstitutional and a deprivation of rights to refuse service to a group because members of that organization, team, or party hold views not in accordance with your own?

(5)  Don’t let management off the hook.  There are, in any organization of any size, some individuals who cannot or will not perform up to expectations and standards.  The reason that some “bad apples” are in the barrel is that someone hired them and put them there.  And, that someone isn’t the union.  A shop steward’s or union rep’s job is made much easier when management is encouraged to maintain or increase its hiring and performance standards.  Speaking of performance standards, a union representative’s life is smoother when those standards are mutually agreed upon after thorough discussions concerning the most appropriate elements to incorporate into the standards and practices, and how performance is to be measured.  For example, if a person’s performance involving interaction with the public is jeopardized by personal tattoos which seem to align that individual with Neo-Nazi or other white racist elements  then that’s something the union and the management need to discuss.  A standard should be agreed upon and mutually enforced.  To do otherwise is to invite all the criticism upon the union and its representatives and let the management off the hook.

Perhaps it’s time for a gentle reminder that to be elected to union leadership means not only do you represent your union members to the management, but that you represent your union to the public?

Comments Off on Police Union Actions Imperil Public Sector Unions

Filed under football, labor, Politics, public safety, racism