I can’t help but read the comments formerly posted to the unofficial blog of the NY transit strike, and see a theme that appears here in Houston also. It’s the same old equation: Public sector union greed + public indifference = collision. No one wins.
Thanks to Dartblog, the comments have been saved, even though the original blog tried to sanitize them. As I read through the first dozen or so comments, all of them fell into the expected molds:
Public: “You’re greedy bastards! And don’t you realize that Public Servant = Public Slave? Now get back to work; you’re making things inconvenient for me!”
Workers: “You just don’t understand what we go through! Waaaaahhhhh!”
Or in their own words:
“when you self righteous people have to go to your jobs and endure people spitting at you,assaulting you, cursing at you and simply hating you for having enough sense to take the test to get our jobs than you have aright to your misguided opinions.oh yeah how about when you go to work, is there anybody taking a piss a few feet from you or maybe some pervert playing with himself. how about your bosses do they write you up for wearing scarves in the winter time or maybe take you off the job because your top button on your shirt is not buttoned? you opinion filled people have no idea what we go through on a daily basis. at least firemen,teachers, cops and even sanitation are respected for what they do.”
and on the flip side, three quotes.
“I think you all probably deserve the raise but this is no way to get it! When you pledge to be a public servant you do so above your own personal needs.
Who are you to take well-paying jobs (for your education levels) serving millions of people and then hold us hostage by striking?
Which part of PUBLIC SERVANT did you not understand?
These serve to counterpoint–and prove– the single best of the early comments (sorry, but I’m not reading all 722 to pull out the gems!):
A question to all who condemn the strike should be: would you take this job, at their pay and conditions? If not, why not?
I think we all know the real answer is of class superiority, disparity and complete apathy towards laborers who clearly are not by any means wealthy or close to it. To condemn these people wanting a fair shake for both new and current members is a shameful day in which the next strategy of the government would presumably be to privatize it.
(Emphasis added–ubu)
Now take that question, and apply it to the wages I posted for jobs in the City of Houston yesterday. Add to that, the recent moves by the SEIU to aggressively organize city workers (after years of benign neglect by the current union AFSCME) and their, er, overly enthusiastic support for Sue Lovall, successful candidate for City Council. Is Houston headed for a New York/California-style collision of the public sector with the public interest? Maybe . The elements are there or assembling themselves. Very disgruntled employees; low pay, cuts in benefits, no future, no respect. An apathetic/blind public, uncaring about the situation of the public sector employees. A powerful and determined union, albeit without the general support of the employees — so far.
I won’t cut the public any slack for it’s attitude towards public sector employees. Too many times, people equate “Public Sector” with “Public Slave.” And there is a strong attitude towards city/government employees as the products of job programs; i.e.: they couldn’t hold a real job so they got hired by the government. I know when I tried to break out several years ago, it was damn near hopeless. You could watch the interviewer reading down the resume for the first time,* and asking questions; then they would reach the part about current employement.
Boom. You could see it in their posture, and often their face, and tenor of their questions–rarely did they bother to conceal it. “What the hell did they send me a city employee for? Nobody is going to hire someone who’s been with the city that long!” Sometimes, they weren’t that restrained.
Nor is the general public much better. I’ve had people break off conversations and walk away upon finding out I’m a public sector employee. I’ve had women remark to their friends (right in front of my face!) “Oh, honey, you wouldn’t be interested in him, he works for the city–he doesn’t have any money!” I mean damn. That’s just harsh.
It’s also true, but I made that point already, yesterday.
On the flip side, I’m not going to cut the employees or the unions any slack either. The last thing this city needs is to end up like New York or California, with powerful public sector unions dictating a fiscally suicidal policy to the employer. I might be the only employee in all of Houston to hold this view, but I don’t believe in public sector unions. I supported Reagan when he fired the PATCO strikers and broke that union over 20 years ago, and my opinion hasn’t changed on that matter since, even if I am a government employee now: Government employees have got no business belonging to unions as they exist today. A public sector union should be no more than a method of streamlining feedback & communication from employees to the politicians who ultimately run the system. That job cannot be left to the managers and directors, because it provides for too much insulation and the top bureaucrats end up with all the power, because without an alternative channel, they control the flow of information from the rank and file to the politicians. (Information flow is power. Just ask CBS.)
After almost 20 years with the city, I have reached the conclusion that there’s really two areas that the mythical “average city employee” lacks, compared to a private sector counterpart. However, I’m going to save that for a related post that I’ve been tinkering with for some time now. Look for it some time after Christmas, entitled, “What’s Wrong With City Employees?”
In the meantime, you might want to tune to KTRH AM 740 at 10 am–noon today, as councilmember Michael Berry will be discussing unions, the MTA strike, and what it means to Houston. Listen here.