|
March/April 2008
Back in the old days of the 60s, 70s, and even 80s, one of the top songwriters in the nation was a man named Tom T. Hall. Even if you don’t know the name, you’ve heard his songs. He’s known as “The Storyteller,” because so many of his songs tell a story. His song “Harper Valley PTA” was a colossal hit for Jeannie C. Riley, back in 1968. Of the countless songs Tom has written, 11 have reached number 1 on the country charts, and 26 others have been in the Top 10. As a recording artist, Tom has been terrifically successful, and he has had such hits as “I Love,” and the number-1 hit, “Old Dogs, Children, and Watermelon Wine.”
If you’ve heard “Old Dogs, Children, and Watermelon Wine,” you probably remember it. It was the story of Tom’s meeting up with an “elderly man,” who told Tom that he’d “tried it all,” but the only things in the world worth anything were “old dogs, and children, and watermelon wine.” Tom’s picturesque language and haunting melody were definitely the makings of a great song.
Lately, I’ve been thinking a little about the closing words of the song:
That night I dreamed in peaceful sleep of shady summertime—
Of old dogs, and children, and watermelon wine.
There is something strangely evocative, even eerie, about these lines. This song was based on a real occurrence in Tom’s life, and it seems that Tom, the successful songwriter, saw this other man’s philosophy as symbolic of some real truth—and that he caught a glimpse of that real truth as he slept that night. And note, it was peaceful sleep! What’s better than that?
And, you know, life’s real, basic truths are apt to be this simple. I don’t have any dogs. My kids are growing up. I’ve never tasted watermelon wine (and I don’t have any reputation as a drinker). But to me, this song is a reminder that life is only complicated because we make it that way.
But things are rarely black and white. At OCEA, and in our actions with the County and Court, and with many cities and districts, things are unavoidably complicated, and getting more so all the time. Whether we are preparing for bargaining, studying legislation, handling grievances, or dealing with any of a thousand other OCEA matters, things are complex. They require close study, and they mean occasional sleepless nights.
Can we turn back the clock? No, we can’t. And I don’t know that I would want to. In many ways, America is better now than it has been at any time in the past. The problem is, being better off comes at a price, in cold dollars and cents. We have better medical care available than in the past, but its costs border on prohibitive. Our houses and apartments are better built, and many even have fire sprinklers, but this, too, comes at a cost. We are living longer, and our compensation has to pay, directly or indirectly, for our expenses (including medical expenses) during significantly longer lives.
In terms of pure “money coming in,” hardly any of us are better off than our parents—and in many cases, our parents had it pretty rough! Household incomes are somewhat higher, but that’s mainly because in many cases there are now two people (or more) in a household providing income to help the family scratch toward the dream. The middle class is vanishing, but it might be clearer if we said that the American dream is fading.
In some ways, we are indeed better off than we were in the past. But the bottom-line, irrefutable point is this: we are not as well off as we would be if it were not for things such as an unfair system of taxes, breaks given to corporations, exploitative employers, anti-union businesses, unfair pay and benefits, junking of pensions by major corporations, and so on. The little guy, the person who often has no voice, is suffering so the fatcats can have more money than they know what to do with.
And, please, the canard that the rich are being bled to death by taxes is ridiculous. The rich people are—well, RICH! The people who are being bled are the lower-class and middle-class.
What’s the solution? I don’t have all the answers, but I am confident that all of us must play an active role in OCEA if we are to reverse the current trend. Unions are playing a key role, and will continue to do so, in this struggle.
Look at these words, found toward the beginning of Tom T. Hall’s song, “Old Dogs, Children, and Watermelon Wine”:
I was sittin’ in Miami, pouring
blended whiskey down, . . .
See the contrast portrayed in this song? What he drank was blended whisky; what he dreamed about (“That night I dreamed in peaceful sleep...”) was watermelon wine.
Our lives are one thing. Our dreams are another. For most of us, the disappearing middle class will only place our dreams that much farther away.
In Solidarity,
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
When Elaine Chao was appointed Secretary of Labor in 2001, she got all excited about a USA Today headline that read, “GOP puts unions in its crosshairs.” She more or less denied the “crosshairs” idea, but in such a way that you couldn’t really tell what she was saying. For instance, she said, “On another issue, workers’ expectations of retirement security have completely changed from the norms that existed even twenty years ago.” Not sure what she means! Does she mean that workers don’t expect as much, because employers are dropping their retirement programs right and left?
Or, maybe she is claiming that employees would rather not have orthodox retirement plans at all. She went on to say, “At the same time, the financial world is churning out investment options at a dizzying pace, giving people at every economic level the opportunity to personally shape their own retirement goals.” It seems that Chao believes that defined-contribution plans (roundly and universally condemned by organized labor) are what the workers want!
It is people like Elaine Chao who have given rise to the expression, “Actions speak louder than words.” Earlier this year, she tried to contract-out the work of 250 employees in her department! (I’m not kidding!)
And this brings us to Chao’s Thanksgiving greeting last year (2006) to Department of Labor employees. She wrote:
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your loved ones! I hope you’ll have a relaxing and fun holiday weekend with family, friends and loved ones. Last weekend, I was in my neighborhood grocery and learned that the couple who ran it for decades are facing health challenges. I thought of them as I composed this email and am reminded how grateful we are to have the friends, colleagues, and family who enrich our daily lives. I hope we’ll also remember our men and women in uniform this Thanksgiving. And once again, thank you for your service to our country.
Happy Thanksgiving!
This is found in a blog (that was run by labor activist Jordan Barab) called “Confined Spaces,” which dealt mainly with workplace safety issues. Jordan’s response to Chao really tore into the cluelessness of Chao’s greeting:
Happy Thanksgiving to you too and thanks for your note! But I’m afraid I can’t figure out what the hell you’re talking about!
You say that “Last weekend, I was in my neighborhood grocery and learned that the couple who ran it for decades are facing health challenges.”
. . . What’s a health “challenge”? Is their health “challenged” or is their ability to pay for their health care challenged?
Here is another great line of Jordan’s: “Oh, and by the way, my holiday ‘weekend’ would be more fun and relaxing if I didn’t have to work on Friday.”
As a matter of fact, Chao has been widely criticized by leaders in the labor movement, for a long time. Back in 2003, after a meeting with labor leaders, the Washington Post reported:
“We had a pretty unbelievable session,” AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney said after hearing Chao. “She was angry at points, insulting at points. I said that in all my years in labor, I’ve never seen a secretary of labor so anti-labor.” . . .
“There was a lot of shock and amazement in the room” during the meeting with Chao, said Leo W. Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers of America, whose members have been hit hard by layoffs. “We were made to feel like we were the enemy.”
What’s my point? Don’t hire a fox to guard your chickens, don’t ask a cat to give you swimming lessons, and don’t ask the Department of Labor what is good for workers.
So, was the newspaper headline correct? Did the GOP have unions “in its crosshairs”? Sure looks like it to me, and it looks as though Elaine Chao is the administration’s primary sniper.
Elaine Chao’s Thanksgiving greeting doesn’t really work for me, but here is one you can take to the bank:
Happy Thanksgiving to all OCEA members and their families!
In Solidarity,
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
!
In Arnold Schwarzenegger’s January 2007 Second Inaugural Address, he proclaimed:
I believe that we have an opportunity to move past partisanship…to move past bi-partisanship…to move to post-partisanship. Post-partisanship is not simply Republicans and Democrats each bringing their proposals to the table and then working out the differences. No, post-partisanship is Republicans and Democrats actively giving birth to new ideas together.
Observers tended to be a little skeptical. For instance, Assemblyman Jose Solorio of Santa Ana told the Register, “He may be ahead of his time in talking about post-partisanship.”
More recently, in September 2007, LA Times writer Jordan Rau said, “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s vow to create a ‘post-partisan’ string of accomplishments for California this year succumbed to the Capitol’s entrenched ideological divides, resulting in a legislative session that by many measures was the least fruitful of the governor’s tenure.” Early in October, in the San Diego Union-Tribune, Tony Quinn laid it on the line, saying: “California politics are more partisan than ever, and the Legislature more bitterly divided on partisan grounds than probably anytime in its history.”
Assemblymember Bob Huff said early this year:
And, now we are being asked to engage in “post-partisanship.” Unfortunately, we have already fallen too far down this slippery slope to even consider a concept that requires us to completely abandon our ideology for the purposes of becoming “centrist.” I’m sorry but the floor of the Assembly is not Romper Room, and it shouldn’t be. We aren’t playing Chutes and Ladders—we are trying to solve the very real and complex challenges facing California.
On the other hand, as recently as July, Schwarzenegger said, several weeks before the legislature adopted the state budget, “So the post-partisanship is alive and is well; Democrats and Republicans are working together very well . . . .”
Is it somehow possible that “post-partisanship” has failed miserably, and yet at the same time, it is “alive and well”?
The proof of the pudding will ultimately be in the eating. But when will we be eating this pudding? I don’t know, but it might be reasonable to allow a little more time to go by before proclaiming a failure of Schwarzenegger’s ideas on their own terms.
Probably the most important thing to remember is that we can’t ask Arnold’s idea to be what it isn’t. He isn’t asking everyone to join the Y-Indian Guides and sit around the campfire, singing “Green Grow the Rushes.” His post-partisanship idea is not something that came forth full-blown. It’s more of a process.
But never forget that Arnold Schwarzenegger is notorious for having promoted some terribly anti-labor ideas. He supported Proposition 75, which would have dealt a severe blow to California’s labor movement. His Workers’ Compensation “reforms” basically meant reduced premiums for businesses at the expense of the injured workers.
Some of you Republicans may be afraid that, in the name of post-partisanship, Schwarzenegger is “governing like a Democrat.” And some of you Democrats may be happy because you think that is what he is doing. But you might want to look a little closer.
In reality, Arnold has his own ideals which he is highly unlikely to surrender. While Republicans may wail and moan about how Arnold has done them wrong, he hasn’t really strayed from the fold.
So, we can continue to look for interesting happenings is Sacramento, but I’m not quite ready to tune in Romper Room, or to break out the Chutes and Ladders.
In Solidarity,
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
You don’t hear too much about the Everly Brothers these days, but not long ago (the way I measure things), these guys were huge. They were extremely popular well into the 1960s. In 1958, they scored a colossal hit with “All I Have to Do Is Dream.” That record has the distinction of being the only record ever to be number one on all of Billboard’s singles charts (Pop, C&W, and R&B) at the same time.
They are also well known for such hits as “Bye Bye, Love,” “Wake Up, Little Susie” (which also charted number one on all three charts), “Bird Dog,” and “Devoted to You.”
All of these songs were written by the Hall of Fame songwriters Felice and Boudleaux Bryant. That songwriting team also produced a song called “Problems,” which made it to #2. They wrote:
Problems, problems, problems all day long;
Will my problems work out right or wrong?
And that, my friends, brings us to the labor movement. We’ve got problems.
If you ask anyone involved in labor, “What are the problems facing the labor movement today,” you’ll probably get a different answer from each person.
But here is how I look at it.
One of the main problems is the difficulty in figuring out what the problems are!
This is exemplified by “lean production.” Is it good? Is it bad? Is it somehow neither good nor bad?
A lot of people think it’s great. On the other hand, lots of union activists hate it. It’s a complicated concept, with countless variations. Books have been written about it. But boiled down, it means “eliminating waste in the work process,” and its main principles probably have their origin in interchangeable parts, mass production, and the assembly line. In the United States today, lean production in one form or another has become almost a way of life in most industries. Henry Ford refined the concepts, and the so-called Toyota Production System exemplifies it today.
Some unions have more or less endorsed it, but in many work contexts, the concept is fraught with dangers. Here is what two of the most outspoken critics of “lean production” (Charlie Post and Jane Slaughter) say:
From management’s point of view, the beauty of lean production is “eliminating waste”—getting rid of “excess” activities, materials and workers. The only problem is, their definition of “waste” includes most things that make work life bearable, like breaks, or a reasonable pace, or a set work schedule, or a decent paycheck, or job security. To get the greatest bang for the buck, lean production stresses workers to the limits of their capacities, through:
• Speed-up, plain and simple—just work faster, or do more jobs, or do the same with fewer people.
• Deskilling—break the jobs down so they take little time to learn. This saves money because higher paid skilled workers can be replaced with lower paid unskilled workers.
• “Multi-skilling”—really multi-tasking. Doing more jobs, usually of the deskilled variety.
• Contracting out or privatization of work previously done by unionized workers.
• Use of temporaries, part-timers, and contract workers.
• More flexibility for management in setting hours and tasks.
• Cracking down on absenteeism and eliminating replacements for people who are absent or retire.
The foregoing was written by longtime critics of “lean production” in the year 2000. The eerie thing is that a lot of these consequences are readily observable in many workplaces today, even in the County of Orange.
It’s axiomatic that these listed consequences do not benefit the workers. They benefit the employer.
One of the main benefits of unionization is that (in theory) it keeps employees from competing with each other based not on the quality of their work, but based on who can do the job for less money. Yet, when we introduce the tier system (one popular component of lean production) into the workplace, that is in effect what happens.
That is one of the reasons OCEA fights so hard against the implementation of tier systems (for example, where extra-help, temporary, or part-time employees are hired to do the work of full-time employees, or where new hires receive worse retirement benefits). In the long run, a tier system hurts all employees, directly or indirectly. In some instances, tier systems can actually take money out of the pockets of older employees, by reducing the pool of employees paying for benefits.
We need the think deeply about major strategies before endorsing them. This includes lean production, and other features of work that may seem neutral or innocuous on their face.
According to the Everly Brothers song, “You can solve my problems with a love that’s true.”
Unfortunately, the solutions to labor’s problems aren’t that simple. The overall guiding principle is something like Davy Crockett’s saying, “Be always sure you’re right, then go ahead.”
It’s the “being sure” that’s the hard part.
In Solidarity,
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
Without union organizers, we would be living in a much different world today.
Lech Walesa’s Solidarity union is widely credited in having played a major role in the downfall of communism.
Cesar Chavez is remembered as possibly the greatest of American civil rights workers after Martin Luther King.
Of course, there are many labor leaders who were great organizers, but few are famous by virtue of their role as organizers. When I refer to “organizers,” I’m not talking about the ones in suits and ties who address thousands at huge rallies. I’m talking about the guys down in the trenches, establishing a union presence where formerly there was none. It’s a person-to-person occupation that requires brains, nerve, and backbone. Labor organizers are involved in an activity that is stressful and tiring, and one which, historically, was a rather dangerous profession.
And do you know what? It is still dangerous for some.
Did you see the stories on the recent murder of an AFL-CIO organizer in Monterrey, Mexico? Santiago Raphael Cruz, an employee of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, had been assigned to Monterrey to assist farm workers headed to the United States in a legal worker program. Cruz was brutally murdered this last April. Although the crime has not been resolved, it is suspected that his death was brought about by racketeers who are losing huge sums of money because of FLOC’s inroads. As tragic and shocking as Cruz’s death is, there have been many murders of community and union activists in Mexico over the past year.
I don’t know whether we really view Martin Luther King as a labor organizer, but he lost his life in Memphis, Tennessee, while supporting AFSCME’s organizing drive for Memphis garbage workers.
In fact, the fight for civil rights in America, and the organizing of American labor, are inextricably linked historically.
As labor expert Nathan Newman has written:
[I]t’s worth remembering that the labor movement, however haltingly at times, was far ahead of all other groups in leading the charge for civil rights. Without the labor movement, the major civil rights laws would probably never have been passed, or at least it would have taken many more years.
The labor movement in general, and labor organizers in particular, have played a crucial role in bringing our country to the place it now is.
And that’s the way it will always be.
In Solidarity,
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
We’re still in the middle of bargaining. This year, it has been going at a varying pace: sometimes slow and sometimes lightning fast. Even though bargaining is our main focus now at OCEA, we have a lot of other things of interest going on as well.
With the 2004 strike of grocery workers still fresh in our minds, we now find the United Food and Commercial Workers in the middle of another dispute with management, and another strike may be in the offing. OCEA had a number of representatives at recent UFCW rallies, because the UFCW fight is really the fight of all working people. (If we went on strike against the County, you’d want to know that other working people were on your side, wouldn’t you?)
Another topic that has been on my mind lately is the whole Wal-Mart controversy. It’s one that our Board of Directors and Stewards are also becoming more interested in. I don’t know, but maybe it ties in with the whole UFCW subject, since the UFCW has been trying hard to make inroads on Wal-Mart’s anti-union policies.
We’ll get back to Wal-Mart in a second, but first, let me ask you a question: Do you remember anything about the year 1912? It was a great year in history, filled with joys and tragedies. New Mexico and Arizona were admitted to the union. Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen announced his successful visit to the South Pole (he had arrived there late the preceding year). French flyer Henri Seimet made the first non-stop flight from Paris to London. Those were among the positive events. Tragically, 1912 was also the year the RMS Titanic struck an iceberg and sank.
However, our present interest in the year 1912 is the establishment that year of the Bull Moose Party, which nominated Theodore Roosevelt for the Presidency. In mid-year, McClure’s Magazine said:
From the Roosevelt standpoint, it was a campaign from
the “grass roots up.” The voter was the thing.
At the Bull Moose convention at which Roosevelt was nominated, Senator Albert Beveridge said: “This party comes from the grass roots. It has grown from the soil of the people’s hard necessities.”
Roosevelt was defeated in the final election, but the “grass roots” idea was a good one. You can’t fake a grass-roots movement. Oh, people have tried, and such phoniness is doomed to failure (at least as a grass-roots movement).
This brings us to another question. What is a “movement”? The relevant dictionary definitions go something like this:
A series of organized activities by people acting concertedly toward some goal.
A series of actions or activities intended or tending toward a particular end: the movement toward universal suffrage.
A diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal: the antislavery movement; the realistic movement in art.
If that’s what we mean by “movement” when we are talking about the labor movement, then I feel sorry for us. These definitions tend to reduce “movements” to a “series of organized activities.” To my way of thinking, we have enough events, programs, and whatnot. What we need is to reach into the hearts and souls of the people, to show them why organized labor is important, not only for union members but for all employees and their families.
As many have recognized, there is a vast difference between a “grass-roots movement” and a “well-financed campaign” pretending to be a grass-roots movement. It’s a difference we need to look for in a lot of what we see going on around us.
If a grass-roots movement is phony enough, it is called “astroturfing.” And that brings us back to Wal-Mart. “Astroturfing” is a term that was aptly applied to a website called “Working Families for Wal-Mart,” which was put together by Wal-Mart’s public relations firm. It wants you to think it’s a spontaneous outpouring of support from Wal-Mart fans. But it’s as fake as a three-dollar bill.
Wal-Mart Watch, on the other hand, is a group of “good guys” which seeks “to challenge the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, to become a better employer, neighbor, and corporate citizen.” They decided to have some fun with the Wal-Mart site. They launched a “fake” of the fake site! It’s called “Working Families for Wal-Mart?” (Notice the question mark.) The Wal-Mart Watch group is sponsored by organizations such as the Sierra Club, SEIU, and the National Council of Women’s Organizations.
What’s the problem with Wal-Mart? Here is the Wal-Mart Watch way of looking at it:
Associates choose to work at Wal-Mart – until they discover that the job offers poor wages, meager benefits, and no chance at a career. That’s why 70% of employees quit within their first year on the job.
Consumers across the country want families to benefit from Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, Wal-Mart blocks every attempt by local employees to organize for fair wages, health care benefits and equal employment opportunities – silencing those who stand up for their rights.
Real working families everywhere know what Wal-Mart won’t acknowledge: Wal-Mart is destroying our economy, environment and culture. Working families continue to shop at Wal-Mart and line up for jobs because they have nowhere else to go. It really is time for Wal-Mart to become a better employer, neighbor, and corporate citizen.
Note the second paragraph there. Wal-Mart is well known as the most adamant union-busting employer in the country. They don’t make much of a secret of the fact. As the country’s biggest private-sector employer (about 1.3 million US employees), the impact of their anti-employee policies is incalculable.
So, we are among the fortunate ones. As bad as things may get for us, we still have a voice at the bargaining table, through OCEA.
But we don’t live in an ivory tower. We see what’s going on around us. That’s why we are concerned for the un-unionized employees of Wal-Mart.
If you ask me, though, it is only a matter of time before the unions experience significant organizing victories at Wal-Mart. And the main reason will be this: Astroturf compaigns don’t stand a chance against true grass-roots movements that grow “from the soil of the people’s hard necessities.”
In Solidarity,
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
We are now in the midst of our biggest bargaining since mid-2004. As we come up against the expirations of our current contracts with the County, we are seeking to reach new agreements. We realize the importance of communicating with our members throughout this process, and we are committed to doing so.
As most of our members are aware, there are only certain types of communications which are permissible. For instance, we cannot publish the details of any of the County’s offers, or our responses to them. Nor will we be publishing our own proposals. In the April President’s Message, our OCEA President, Sara Ruckle-Harms, discussed some of the reasons for this, and stressed the need for patience.
However, I can say that one of our main areas of concentration will be upon salary increases, in view of the fact that, under our current agreements, we went for three years with no general salary increases. We received an increase in mid-2003, then none in 2004, and none in 2006. The next increase, in fact, was in 2006. Moreover, salary increases are one of the main areas our members expressed an interest in, on the 2007 bargaining surveys.
For most of our members, the best place to go for bargaining updates will be our OCEA website (www.oceamember.org). We expect to post brief updates on our website each week during bargaining, probably on Friday.
We will also be sending periodic emails to those on our OCEA-member email list. If you are an OCEA member and wish to receive such emails, send an email to Mitch Enright and ask to be placed on our “bargaining update email list.”
As the General Manager of OCEA, which is the exclusively recognized employee organization for our County bargaining units, I will be the representative responsible for the issuance of the email communications. Information provided to you through this process may be forwarded to your coworkers.
The big problem that we face is that alluded to above, namely how much information to communicate. We clearly understand that our members would like a blow-by-blow description of what is occurring in negotiations. The problem is that breaching the confidential nature of negotiations by providing very specific information severely reduces our chances of reaching our goals. Also, the negotiations process is fluid, and things change on a daily basis, so information can become inaccurate quickly.
However, more importantly, if specific information becomes public, by the time it has been passed from one person to another the information takes on a life of its own. It can become part of the rumor mill, often with absolutely no relationship to the current truth. Additionally, once information becomes public, the bargaining process is subjected to the influence of outside interests that usually have their own agendas (e.g., editorial writers).
The ultimate disclosure of the negotiations process occurs when the final offer is reviewed and voted upon by the OCEA’s members and by the Board of Supervisors. The information is made public at that time and each member knows the details and can either vote to approve the contract or reject the contract. Simply put, the final decision remains with our OCEA membership, which has the final information and the final right of approval or rejection.
We are looking forward to negotiating a fair settlement this year and we will dedicate ourselves night and day over the coming weeks and months to this end.
In Solidarity,
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
As many of you are now aware, the theme of our current bargaining is Audaces fortuna iuvat. At OCEA, we are different, and we are one of the few unions which give you a painless lesson in Latin, just for being involved. Our center spread this issue has some historical background on the phrase.
“Fortune favors the bold!” It is a noble thought, and the phrase (with or without slight variations) is the slogan of many groups or institutions. Two notable examples are the Portuguese Commandos and the U.S. Navy submarine USS Montpelier.
In fact, if you review some of the other Latin maxims out there, you will find that quite a bit of wisdom reposes in them, for people who are involved in the labor movement in general, and for OCEA’s members in particular. This is especially so, as we enter the difficult period of 2007 collective bargaining in our eight County units.
Let’s look at a few!
Non semper erit aestas. This has been translated, “It will not always be summer,” meaning “Be prepared for hard times.” While we at OCEA prepare for both good times and bad times, one constant truth always lies before us. We must work for everything we achieve. Nothing is handed to us on a platter. The harder we work, and the more we show unity, the better we will fare.
Qui tacet consentit. This may be translated, “He who is quiet, consents.” Most of us have seen this maxim somewhere or another. I prefer to put it in a more exhortative fashion: Get involved with OCEA, and stay involved! Our organization is well designed to allow dissenters to express their views. Traditionally, we have encouraged those who feel strongly about OCEA’s actions and proposed actions not only to get involved, but to think about becoming one of our leaders. We have always been entirely member-run, and we need a diversity of views to be expressed at all levels.
The maxim “Qui tacet consentit” also comes to mind when I think about OCEA’s continuing political involvement. We have just come out of a First District Supervisor election wherein only a small percentage of eligible voters even bothered to cast their ballots. Most people who do not vote seem to operate under a supposition that “those who do vote will be representative of those who don’t.” They think that the voting group is a microcosm of the non-voting group. To put it another way, they think that the election results, when only part of the population is voting, will be the same as they would be if everyone voted.
That might be true half the time. What usually happens is that some portion of the electorate “leverages” their point of view. They do this in many ways, but a common one is that they not only vote themselves, but they get their friends and family members to vote the same way.
So, within OCEA and also in the political realm, don’t consent by being quiet. Let your voice be heard within OCEA and also in the political arena.
Lastly, think about this: Aut inveniam viam aut faciam. This may be translated, “I will either find a way or make one.” That always should be one of our guiding principles. Our goals at OCEA are in the main realistic. But if, once in a while, we come up with something we want that seems impossible, we may just go after it anyway!
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
In school, for most of us, not too much attention was given to the War of 1812. That’s a pity, since it possessed many features which capture the imagination, not the least of which is the valor of our American fighting forces. For example, at the end of the war was the Battle of New Orleans, which is practically as famous as the war itself, and which made Andrew Jackson a national hero.
Possibly the most “everyday” fact concerning the War of 1812 was the composition of the “Defense of Fort McHenry,” by Francis Scott Key, a poem which later became the words to our national anthem. The gigantic flag which inspired Key is now a part of the collection of the Smithsonian Institution. It is a fifteen-star, fifteen-stripe flag, with stripes two-feet tall and stars about two feet across. The flag was an enormous 30 feet tall.
But the war also provided us with the heroism of Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry (1785 – 1819), who, upon the capture of several British vessels on Lake Erie, penned the immortal words, “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” This was in the aftermath of a battle on Lake Erie, of which Perry later wrote, in part:
At 15 minutes before 12, the enemy commenced firing; at five minutes before 12, the action commenced on our part. Finding their fire very destructive owing to their long guns, and its being mostly directed at the Lawrence [Perry’s ship], I made sail, and directed the other vessels to follow, for the purpose of closing with the enemy. Every brace and bowline being soon shot away, she became unmanageable, notwithstanding the great exertions of the sailing master. In this situation, she sustained the action upwards of two hours within canister distance, until every gun was rendered useless, and the greater part of her crew either killed or wounded.
It’s hard to imagine what kinds of things were going through the minds of the men on both sides of this battle, in which Perry was the victor.
But what does all this have to do with OCEA?
Well, we are in a war of our own now. And we will be facing battles of our own.
And we have met the enemy.
Who, or what, is the enemy? Well, if you are thinking “the County,” I see your reasoning. But no, the County is not the enemy.
What about members of the Board of Supervisors? Well, some members are our friends. Some are more in the nature of people with whom we work to achieve things. We work to achieve our own goals—that’s obvious. But when we can, we also work to achieve the goals of the Board of Supervisors as a whole and of the individual Board members. If you remember your high-school biology class, you may remember “mutualism,” a type of symbiosis in which both organisms seem to benefit. I guess you can think of it in those terms.
It’s nice to have the Board and OCEA working together as allies. After all, we both want a better County for our citizens, and better lives for public employees in the County in general, and for OCEA’s members in particular.
But as I say, like Perry, we have met the enemy.
In a phrase, our enemy is lack of OCEA-member involvement. We will never achieve everything we can, unless our members operate with a common drive, one which has us united behind OCEA’s goals. I’m not talking simply about “oh, we all agree that our members should receive pay increases.” I’m talking about our members being willing to go to the mat for the causes that our members have decided are right for OCEA.
This means participating with your thoughts, words, and actions. It means supporting OCEA’s positions, even if you may have to grumble a little about them to yourself. We all win by staying united.
Of course, we can disagree among ourselves, at OCEA Board of Directors meetings, at Steward meetings, and so forth. In those forums, we encourage dissenting views. But for OCEA’s members, when we are in public, it’s the OCEA way, or the highway. Sorry to be so upfront about it, but that’s the way it is. In the same way that non-members—people who could join OCEA but don’t—are in large degree opponents of you and your family, so are the OCEA members who do not stand behind us and help put up a united front.
But the real enemy of each of us, and one that we really need to conquer, is that of apathy, of letting the other guy do it, of not being involved.
This is going to be especially true as we become more involved in our 2007 bargaining in OCEA’s eight County bargaining units.
Let’s keep at the struggle, and in the not too distant future, we may be able to say not just, “We have met the enemy,” but, like Commodore Perry, “We have met the enemy and they are ours.”
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
My message this month will be short and sweet . . . and positive.
In the recent past, we have spent a great deal of effort campaigning against things. Now we can campaign positively for a little while.
In December, our friend Lou Correa left his office as First District Supervisor, to assume his duties in the state Senate. This left his seat on the Board vacant, and it will be filled in an election to be held February 6, 2007.
Although the field is a crowded one, for OCEA there is one name that stands out far above all the others, and that is Tom Umberg—for many good reasons.
OCEA has been a long-time supporter of Tom Umberg. He has the experience, the dedication, and the enthusiasm to be a great representative of his constituents.
Tom has a long and impressive resume. He graduated with honors from UCLA and was awarded his Juris Doctor degree in 1980 at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Later, he served as a federal prosecutor, and maintained a 100% conviction rate, prosecuting, among others, large-scale drug dealers, gang members, and white-collar criminals.
Tom served our area as Assemblyman from 1990 to 1994, and again from 2004 through the end of 2006.
Tom is a guy who bends over backwards to help the cause of people who are powerless to help themselves. He has a sterling reputation for supporting public employees, and his steadiness in this area is unsurpassed by any other legislator.
More than any of this, though, Tom is just a nice guy, easy to talk to, and easy to present your views to. He also maintains a great sense of humor, which is just about essential in the cutthroat world of Orange County politics.
Tom’s friendship with OCEA has been unfailing and unflagging. His face is well-known around OCEA headquarters. He has visited our OCEA Board of Directors in session. He is practically a “regular” when OCEA hosts meetings of the State Coalition of Probation Organizations (SCOPO). And you may have seen him at one of our OCEA Health Fairs. Most recently, Tom was our special Guest of Honor at our recent Steward Awards Dinner, in December, where he received a long standing ovation.
Personally, I am thrilled that Tom has decided to run for the vacant Supervisorial post. It’s an office that each of our members, and in fact, all County employees, should be vitally concerned with, because the Board of Supervisors is the ultimate “boss” of all County employees, and the Board has a great deal to say about your wages and working conditions.
This is one of those times I wish I could say I lived in the First District, because I would dearly love to cast my vote for Tom.
The message is clear: if you live in the First District, I strongly urge you to vote for Tom Umberg. In conservative Orange County, he has been one of the few elected officials who have been a strong voice for working men and women. It’s a voice that is badly needed on our Board of Supervisors.
So, I urge you to cast your vote for Tom on February 6.
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
January 2007
I’ve heard that it was Voltaire who first said, “Anything too stupid to be said, is sung.” Comedian Steve Martin once said that he couldn’t be a songwriter, because his grammar wasn’t bad enough. He cited the popular song which included in its lyrics the following words: “for there ain’t no one for to give you no pain.”
But all kidding aside, songs can often provide amazing insights into the human condition. I’m thinking of a song written way back in 1921, by Tin Pan Alley greats Gus Kahn and Raymond B. Egan (music by Richard Whiting). It’s a song that is still pretty well-known today, probably because it tells the truth with good humor, and because of the never-say-die attitude of the people in the song. The song is called, “Ain’t We Got Fun.”
Here is a typical excerpt:
Ev’ry morn-ing, Ev’ry evening—Ain’t we got fun,
Not much money, Oh but honey—Ain’t we got fun
The rent’s unpaid dear—We haven’t a bus,
But smiles were made dear—for people like us.
This song dates from more than 80 years ago, but one of the reasons it still grabs us is that some of us see ourselves in that song, or at least we “feel” for the people in the song:
Street car seats are awful narrow—Ain’t we got fun,
They won’t smash up our Pierce Arrow—We ain’t got none
They’ve cut my wages—But my income tax will be so much smaller,
When I’m paid off, I’ll be laid off—Ain’t we got fun.
In the supposedly prosperous Orange County, we hear it again and again and again: “I couldn’t live in Orange County if my spouse weren’t working.” Or, “I bought my house five years ago. If I had to buy it today, I wouldn’t be able to.” You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that there is something wrong with this picture.
We will be heading into negotiations soon. Be thinking about what your priorities are. Complete your bargaining survey and return it to OCEA promptly. We need to know more about what our members think and want, as we move into an era with a Board of Supervisors populated mostly by people who act and plan as though they have a deep disdain for County employees, and very little interest in finding out more about the workforce.
I like the part of the old song that says, “The rent’s unpaid, dear. We haven’t a bus.—But smiles were made, dear, for people like us.”
Smiles are great, but I don’t want our members to be forced into trying to pay the rent with one.
Yes, indeed, we got fun.
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
November/December 2006
Often our members ask, “What is the union doing for me?”—or “What have you done for me lately?”
It might be a natural question, because we tend to take good news for granted. We don’t dwell on it as long as we should.
It reminds me of the Kirk Douglas line in the 1951 movie Ace in the Hole: “Bad news sells best. ’Cause good news is no news.” Another fitting line from Douglas in the same movie: “It’s a good story today. Tomorrow, they’ll wrap a fish in it.”
In fact, though, OCEA never stands still. We are always fighting for our members. We pursue grievances. We bargain with public agencies in an effort to improve working conditions, salaries, and benefits. We stay on top of retirement issues and privatization issues. We follow local politics, and to some degree, statewide politics. We stay abreast of benefit trends in the public sector, and the private sector as well. We do our best to know what our members want, and where their interests lie.
But when a member asks, “What is the union doing for me,” it strikes me as a rather peculiar question, because our members are the union.
Many members don’t want to face the reality that they have the responsibility to fight for their rights. Let’s face it: nobody wants to sacrifice if things can come to them easily, and we all love to blame somebody else—it is so much easier.
But the fact is we must understand that we are going to have to fight to protect our interests in coming years.
I wanted to share these photos, taken in late October. Some of us from OCEA—including me—walked picket lines in Anaheim with the trash haulers (Teamsters Local 396) who were on strike against Taormina Industries. The members of Local 396 understand that they are the union, and that only through their efforts and sacrifice will they be able to have a better tomorrow.
Let this be a lesson for us and provide a great answer to those who ask, “What is the union doing for me?”
As I said, it’s the wrong question.
We are the union!
The question is, “What are we doing for ourselves?”
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
October 2006
In a recent General Manager’s Message, I said: “On the whole, the media in Orange County tends to be anti-labor, anti-public employee, and anti-union. Orange County is largely an anti-labor County.”
I don’t think there is anyone who could seriously argue with that assessment. But most of us who are union members in the County do not think much about the ways in which that “little” fact can influence our lives and the lives of our family members.
You see a lot of commentary these days as to who controls the media in the United States.
Conservatives often claim that the liberals dominate. And liberals frequently say that the conservatives are in control. As far as phrases per se are concerned, “liberal media” is seen far more frequently.
Whether it is true or not, it would not be surprising if most people do believe that the media, overall, has a liberal bias.
When you look at matters more closely, that conclusion is rather doubtful—depending, of course, on what you mean by “liberal media.” Steven R. Kangas, a progressive commentator, has written:
The fact is that conservatives have powerful friends in the media: the corporations that own them, and the corporations that pay for their advertising. These giant firms have been increasingly successful in bending the media’s message to suit their self-interests, which include a conservative and pro-corporate agenda. Studies show that the media are eerily silent on the issues most important to workers, consumers and other citizens adversely affected by corporate behavior. [Emphasis added.]
Conservatives respond to these charges with (old) polls showing that most journalists are personally liberal, but these polls are outdated. New polls show the majority of journalists are centrists. And of those who are not centrists, there are more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm.)
The thing that catches my eye here is the reference to the media being “eerily silent on the issues most important to workers.”
In Orange County, we are served by one of the most conservative newspapers in the country: The Orange County Register. I think that The Register is out of step with the views of most of our members, and probably most Americans. Let me give you a few examples.
The Register recently (in mid-June) published a quiz, designed to elucidate some of the positions of their belief structure. It says that it “developed these questions to highlight aspects of ‘small l’ libertarianism, the freedom philosophy that animates our pages. We believe in limited government, respect for the individual, self-responsibility, free markets, free trade and property rights.”
Sounds pretty good, I guess, until you see how they would apply those concepts in practice.
Here is one of their quiz questions, with The Register’s “correct” answer:
[QUESTION] You discover the handyman who has been doing odd jobs around the neighborhood, including some construction projects, does not have a state contractor’s license.
According to the Register-supplied answer, you:
[ANSWER] Rejoice that someone is finding a way around the state’s occupational licensing laws, which function mainly to reduce competition and raise prices for consumers while offering little if any real protection for consumers.
Is that really indicative of the way most of us think? If you are a libertarian, you may love a lot of The Register’s positions. But do you like this idea, stated in the same Register item?
Switch from defined-benefit plans that give public workers a promised percentage of their final pay (usually 80 percent to 100 percent) to defined-contribution plans (i.e., 401-k’s) similar to those in the private sector. While we’re at it, we eliminate or outsource as many government jobs as possible.
Personally, I don’t believe that very many of the County’s readers are conversant with what is going on in the field of public-sector employee relations. But if you are a politician, you cannot help being aware of what the Register and other members of a vocal minority are saying. And the County is largely run by politicians.
This is why, in OCEA’s discussions with the County, we have to keep in mind what the newspapers say!
See you next issue!
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
September 2006
On the whole, the media in Orange County tends to be anti-labor, anti-public employee, and anti-union. Orange County is largely an anti-labor County. This is part of the reason some people believe that public-employee salary increases are attributable to “union greed.”
Is there is any validity to the accusations of “union greed”? Not necessarily. It’s not as though the users of the term have made a methodical study of the topic of greed. They have in no way differentiated between the supposed greed of unions, and other greed, such as corporate greed, the greed for power, the greed many CEOs demonstrate, and even the greed that may be in the hearts of the accusers.
So, in the context in which it is used by the anti-union zealots, the use of the term “union greed” is nothing more than schoolyard name-calling.
There’s nothing new about it.
The New York City transit strike last year was triggered by proposed pension take-backs. In reporting on the strike, Steven Greenhouse, of the New York Times, said:
Mayor Bloomberg repeatedly called the strikers greedy. “The public says, ‘I don’t want to pay more taxes and I don’t get these kind of benefits,’ ” he said yesterday.
Okay, I think we “get” that so-called argument. It isn’t very persuasive, coming from multi-billionaire Bloomberg. We hear it all the time in Orange County. But as pro-labor commentator Jordan Barab has said, instead of accusing unions of greed, and instead of complaining that union workers have better benefits, it is more constructive to say (in Barab’s words): “Hmm, looks like belonging to a union means better pay and benefits. Maybe I should organize a union that would help me fight for better pay and benefits.”
After all, doesn’t that make more sense? Greenhouse, in the New York Times, succinctly summarized labor’s position regarding the NYC transit situation:
Saying that in recent contracts they had sacrificed wage increases or better health benefits for solid pensions, many public employees and their unions assert that governments are betraying their commitments by seeking to now cut pensions. Further, they argue that much of the shortfall in pension financing could be erased by a strong stock market in the next several years.
Sounds almost like he could be talking about OCEA’s views, doesn’t it?
James Parrott (deputy director and chief economist of the progressive Fiscal Policy Institute) said, regarding the New York City situation: “There is a concerted effort nonetheless to force public-sector employees to level down to private-sector standards, where workers have taken a beating in cases like Delphi, GM, Ford and even IBM. We need a concerted push back to re-establish the social contract.”
I don’t think that “greedy unions” exist. Rather, we are people who work hard and expect to be fairly compensated for it. I don’t think that’s different for any middle-class working men and women, union or not.
So, who needs unions? We do!
It is almost always unadulterated hypocrisy for non-union employees to tell you different, when virtually every worker in the nation, including those making the minimum wage, are riding on the coattails of union members, past and present. Even the non-unionized workers at Wal-Mart would be worse off if it weren’t for the work of labor unions.
Back on the New York City transit strike, commentator David Sirota raised the issue of whether some of the people who “still blame workers for having the nerve to fight for their rights need to take a real hard look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether deep down in that place they don’t talk about at parites, they really hold a deep hatred for working class people in general.”
Touché.
As for Orange County, the situation is similar. Does the public really value County employees and other public employees? I don’t know for certain. I do know that the complaining sourpusses are now few in number. Most complaints appear to come from “anti-tax” extremists. Those criticisms appear to be rooted in two things: first, a fundamental desire to get something for nothing (“greed,” I guess you could say), and second, what is worse, a loathing for working men and women.
Neither of those stands up very well to a reasoned argument.
So be ready to confront the opposition.
If they really listen to you, you can convince them: unions are a good thing for everyone!
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
August 2006
Back in the early 1930s, Philip Gordon Wylie and Edwin Balmer wrote the famous science-fiction novel When Worlds Collide. It deals with what can happen when a planet the size of Neptune is on a collision course with Earth.
More recently, we had “Relationship George” and “Independent George” in the television show Seinfeld. Remember when the two clashed: “Worlds are colliding! George is getting very upset!”
One thing is true: when worlds collide, something has to give.
Let’s take two worlds that are frequently on collision courses: ideology and facts. When someone’s ideology is limited and strong enough, it does not have room for facts that conflict with it.
What happens to the facts—to the truth? It becomes a victim of the ideologue. You have the ideologue’s conclusion, and non-facts (or misleading facts) offered to back it up.
Why does this happen? I guess there are several reasons. Our ideologies encourage our laziness: why bother checking the facts on things that we believe cannot possibly be false? Our friends encourage us: they tell us we are right, so who are we to dispute them?
Or (heaven forbid) we might be well aware that the facts conflict with our ideology, but we forward our ideology anyway, because we think there is a greater good than the truth.
I say “we,” but I really mean “they,” because if OCEA does it, it is unintentional and rare. That’s because we are member-driven, and our activities are governed by our 19 elected Board members.
Yet for many—perhaps most—of those who oppose us, it is routine for their ideologies to trounce the facts. It’s just business as usual for them.
It is not an exaggeration to say that there is a huge difference between “us” and “them” in terms of the accuracy of our statements of facts. (I am talking about the very vocal anti-union group, and not mainstream conservatives. Many of our members are mainstream conservatives.) The highly ironic thing is that the opposition so often accuses pro-union people of things they themselves are guilty of. I love it when they say things like “these are issues that the unions don’t want to discuss,” when the topics are budget matters or retirement matters. That is always pure hogwash.
Where can we see “worlds collide”? I’ll give you a prime example, which impacts all of our members: the editorial pages of The Orange County Register. I’m not saying I know the “whys” in the case of The Register. I just know that it happens, and frequently: the truth just gets sacrificed so that The Register can forward its so-called “libertarian,” anti-public employee views.
Oh, and by the way, I draw a sharp distinction between the editorial writers and the reporters. Overall, our local reporters present a reasonably balanced picture.
Now, if I want to see how someone feels about unions, I won’t necessarily ask them if they believe that unions are good, or if they dislike unions. You see, many people who hate unions, unionization, union members, and union goals will actually claim that they have nothing against unions. But then, in the same breath, they will talk about the “outrageous salaries and benefits” that unions have achieved for their members. Sometime I may go into this topic in more detail, because there are many aspects to that kind of hypocrisy, and they are almost never discussed.
That having been said, it is pretty clear to me that The Register hates unions. Hates? Isn’t that kind of a strong word? Well, here are some of the phrases you can find in the writings of The Register’s editorial writers:
“. . . but it’s a good adjustment—which explains why the unions can’t tolerate it.”
“. . . no fact, no fiscal reality, will stop the unions from demanding more . . .”
“Unions will exploit any loophole possible.”
“. . . the unions will be out in force, using their ill-gotten political funds . . .”
“. . . unions being unions – i.e., organizations that rely on force, threats and political arm-twisting to get what they could not possibly get through the marketplace and persuasion . . .”
“. . . other government shirker unions to grab more tax money . . .”
“. . . greedy unions will continually push for more and more . . .”
So, yeah, I’d say they hate unions.
But let’s consider a specific example. Someone claims they’re going to dispel a “myth,” and then all you get from them is a myth of their own.
That’s certainly what The Register’s Steven Greenhut did when he tried to demonstrate that the public sector pays more than the private sector.
In January of this year, he wrote (in one of The Register’s blogs):
It turns out, however, that the notion of the poorly paid public servant is a myth. Government workers now enjoy higher wages than their private-sector counterparts.
If you don’t believe me, check out data collected and issued by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. As of September 2005, total private-employer compensation costs averaged $24.34 an hour per employee, with wages comprising $17.23 an hour. Over the same period, total state and local government compensation costs averaged $36.16 an hour, with wages comprising $24.52 an hour.
That “if you don’t believe me you can check for yourself” concept is a nice, artistic touch.
And, of course, we didn’t believe him, and so we checked.
You can find the actual charts he mentions, at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. If you look at those charts, you find that the comparisons between public and private sector have essentially nothing to do with “counterparts”; they are just generalizations with inadequate information to determine any information about the jobs being compared. You can’t determine that, say, a secretary in the public sector earns more than one in the private sector.
I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on Greenhut. He fell into a trap that others have stumbled into for years. As far back as 1996, one analyst, when dealing with bogus conclusions like those of Greenhut, said:
High-paying white-collar jobs were disproportionately represented in State and local governments, while low-paying sales and blue-collar jobs were disproportionately represented in private industry. This occupational disparity was largely responsible for the average wage being much higher in the public sector.
Two-thirds of all State and local government workers were in white-collar jobs, which typically paid more than blue-collar and service sector jobs. Among white-collar jobs, professional and technical jobs accounted for 56 percent of all State and local government jobs, a percentage more than 2 times greater than that for private industry. On the other hand, the one white-collar job dominated by private industry, sales, paid on average less than half of what professional and technical jobs paid in the public sector.
Lower private industry compensation in the service sector also tilted the pay advantage toward the public sector. The private service industry includes a large portion of low-paying jobs such as waiters, waitresses, and food preparation workers. For these workers, pay is often at or below the Federal minimum wage. Conversely, some high-paying service jobs, such as police officer and firefighter, that are common to governments are virtually nonexistent in the private sector. As a result, average wages in the State and local government service sector are nearly double those of private industry. (Michael A. Miller, Labor Economist, Office of Compensation Levels and Working Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics; “The Public-Private Debate: What Do the Data Show?”; Monthly Labor Review, May 1996, Vol. 119, No. 5, Bureau of Labor Statistics; emphasis added; footnote omitted regarding impact of tips.)
If all public-sector employees were laborers, and all private-sector employees were doctors, do you think Greenhut would have made the comparison that he did? (He wouldn’t have.)
In short, on these kinds of issues, Greenhut simply maneuvers his cherry-picker into position and goes to work.
But people who have actually studied these issues have concluded that, on the whole, private-sector employees make about the same as public-sector employees. This is especially true when you consider the variables that legitimate analysts use. These include such things as the age of the workforce, the education of the workforce, the overall goals of the workforce (security might be an example), and unionization (or lack thereof), and several other factors. So, as much as people like Steven Greenhut might like to believe it, there just are not any meaningful comparisons that show a significant disparity between pay levels in the public and private sectors. It appears that, if any generalization at all is possible, it is that some occupations are higher-paid in the public-sector, and some are higher-paid in the private-sector.
Am I oversimplifying? Sure, I have to. The topic is really far too complex to discuss meaningfully in anything less than an academic study. For example, much has been written regarding the difficulty of comparing public-sector jobs to private-sector jobs. There are few truly comparable jobs from sector to sector. (As a matter of fact, it is even quite difficult to compare jobs between public employees.)
But the point is, either Greenhut is unaware of the body of literature on the subject, or he chose not to discuss any of it. I don’t know which is worse, but in either case, the result is quite embarrassing to read.
Does all of this hold for Orange County? Maybe not completely. The most logical way for a public employer to determine appropriate salaries is through salary surveys of other leading or local jurisdictions. Trial and error doesn’t work very well. (Remember what happened to retention and hiring in County nurse classes? This developed into a major problem after a long era of under-compensation. The County finally recognized the reality.)
This is part of the reason why labor relations professionals can read Steven Greenhut for entertainment, even laughs, but certainly he is a prime example of someone who habitually rushes in where angels fear to tread.
Speaking of laughs, if you really need a good one, check out this statement by Adam Probolsky, President of Probolsky Research, about Greenhut: “I think he [Greenhut] has the hardest job in journalism in OC given all the original thought he needs to convert into quality writings.” Oh, wait, Adam is just saying that he “thinks” that.
Personally, regarding Greenhut’s occupation, I am reminded of what songwriter Randy Newman said about his own vocation: “It’s not a perfect life, but it beats working for a living.”
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
June/July 2006
Remember the 1993 movie The Fugitive? This memorable exchange took place between Deputy Marshal Gerard and Dr. Richard Kimble:
Dr. Kimble: “I didn't kill my wife.”
Deputy Marshal Gerard: “I don't care.”
In the old television series of the same title, Gerard had a similar line:
“I don’t philosophize. I hunt.”
Gerard was a man who knew his purpose in life. He knew why he was here, and where he was going.
Most of us cannot be as single-minded as Gerard. From a practical standpoint, we just have too many people we want to please: our spouses, our children, our friends, our bosses.
Sometimes the desire to carry out your life’s mission can destroy family or work relationships. In short, for most of us, life is a balancing act.
The biggest challenge of all in life is to avoid “surface thinking.” We need to think deeply about the issues that impact us. The “obvious” solutions are often among the worst. If you base your life on surface thinking, you may waste years headed toward a goal that you never should have chosen.
At OCEA, we cannot be satisfied with surface thinking on big issues.
I’ll mention an example. Many people feel that “contracting-out” (a form of privatization) of public jobs is almost always a great idea. Those who “push” privatization are almost always basing their proposals on a strict ideological favoring of the practice (or upon a hidden desire to reward their pals by granting them contracts), and not on a belief that costs will be reduced and service enhanced.
Yet they never state their public arguments in terms of, “Hey, this is my ‘no-government’ political view.” Instead, they base their arguments on privatization myths, like “contracting-out decreases costs,” and “contracting-out improves service.” These myths have a strong appeal to the popular imagination. They are repeated again and again, until they almost seem true.
These issues are going to become bigger and bigger with time. Our members probably know in a general way that “contracting-out” of essential public services has often proven to be a costly, unworkable approach. One commentator who was exposed to privatization in Canada called it the “privatization nightmare” and said quite simply: “Privatization wrecks public services wherever it strikes.” Corruption, cronyism, high costs, and poor service have often been the earmarks of privatization. Monitoring contractor performance has been difficult, if not impossible, to carry out effectively.
Check out this recent quotation (May 19, 2006) from the Los Angeles Times:
Misconduct Taints the Water in Some Privatized Systems
When cities hire firms to run utilities, they seek quality at lower cost.
They may get ethics scandals, violations and irate consumers.
INDIANAPOLIS — In recent years, cities across the U.S. have turned over a vital public service — providing safe drinking water — to private enterprise.
Driving the trend was the idea that for-profit companies, mainly European conglomerates, could operate water and sewer systems efficiently, keeping water quality high and costs low.
In some places, private-sector management helped trim bureaucracies and replace decaying infrastructure, local officials say. But in Indianapolis, New Orleans, Atlanta and other cities, privatization has been accompanied by corruption scandals, environmental violations and a torrent of customer complaints.
Ouch!
As the Times author says:
Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, an Oakland think tank that studies water issues, said the rhetoric of privatization “has run into the brick wall of reality.”
Uh, sounds like it!
That is just one example of an issue that we have to be thinking about.
Of course, we can also think deeply on a grander scale.
Many of you will recall Thomas Paine and his pamphlet Common Sense. Now there was a man who thought deeply about great issues. And his impact on history was beyond calculation. Without him, the American Revolution might have fizzled out, and what is now the United States might be part of Great Britain. There would still be plenty of people living here, but history would be so different that neither you nor I would be among them.
So, set a course, and carry it out.
And base your planned course on deep thinking.
Most of us have heard of the C.S. Lewis book, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Another book in the “Chronicles of Narnia” is The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. In that book, there is one statement by Reepicheep, the mouse, which tends to stick in people’s minds:
My own plans are made. While I can, I sail east in the Dawn Treader. When she fails me, I paddle east in my coracle. When she sinks, I shall swim east with my four paws. And when I can swim no longer, if I have not reached Aslan’s country, or shot over the edge of the world in some vast cataract, I shall sink with my nose to the sunrise . . . .
Reepicheep desparately needed to find Aslan, and nothing anyone else said would deter him. Reaching Aslan was not merely his goal. It has been said that, more than that, it was his purpose for living, the fulfillment of the reason for which he was created.
Most of us believe that we are so involved in the details of day-to-day living that we don’t have the opportunity to think deeply, or to chart a magnificent course to a goal that represents our fulfillment as a person.
Not so. We can make the time. We can think the deep thoughts. We can chart the course, for ourselves and our families.
Just imagine what 13,000 OCEA members, really thinking things through and planning their actions, can accomplish.
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
May 2006
As a person closely involved in the public-sector labor movement in Orange County, I am always amused when I see a misguided “outsider” commenting negatively about unions (or what they sometimes call “union bosses”). Such people usually know almost nothing about the labor movement, and they especially know little or nothing about OCEA and its inside workings.
John Moorlach, our County’s Treasurer-Tax Collector, is such a person, and he is now running for Supervisor. As such, he wants to be one of the five people who vote on the salaries and benefits of County employees. OCEA has often said—in more pleasant circumstances—that our Board of Supervisors is the ultimate “boss” of all 18,000 County employees!
Incidentally, I have a great deal of respect for each of the current members of the Board of Supervisors: Bill Campbell, Lou Correa, Chris Norby, Jim Silva, and Tom Wilson. I also like all of them personally, and they and their offices are all cooperative with OCEA and our members. Of course, OCEA has disagreed vehemently with certain Board members on occasion, especially Chris Norby. But I like Chris, and he is always civil and always a gentleman.
Now, back to the upcoming election. Those of you who live in the Second District will have the opportunity to choose between David Shawver and John Moorlach. Our OCEA Board of Directors, staff, and many, many County employees, as well as members of the public at large, will tell you that you should vote for David Shawver, no contest. And I have to say, it is times like this that I wish my family lived in the Second District, because I would consider it an honor to vote for Shawver myself.
As Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem in the City of Stanton, David has for 16 years ably represented his constituents. He is a true community leader who has the overall well-being of his people at heart. He is a fine, honorable man, with an unblemished, distinguished record of real accomplishment. He is a Republican, with conservative values that are shared by many of our members.
I have known David’s challenger, John Moorlach (County Treasurer) for a long time now, since the days of the County bankruptcy a dozen years ago. In those days, John was kind of a likeable guy.
He was, and is, basically a CPA with a flair for the dramatic—at heart, a politician—who loves being the center of attention. His ability to represent people is seriously constrained by what he sees as his role as a “watchdog.” Now, I like watchdogs as much as the next guy, and so do our members. We like to see the County investing its money wisely. But he does not have the depth of experience, wisdom, and knowledge that a member of the Board of Supervisors should have.
Honestly, I actually think John has changed in the last few years. For one thing, all kidding aside, he has actually started believing his own publicity.
But what I think Moorlach cannot possibly believe is his explanation of the figures he states relating to the status of our “2.7% at 55” retirement plan, in a recent Moorlach fundraising letter.
I wish all of you could see John’s fundraising letter.
In the letter, John Moorlach has resorted to using scare tactics of a rather laughable sort. He even has the gall to start his letter with the words, “I don’t mean to alarm you . . .,” and then he proceeds to do everything within his power to—well, alarm you.
I don’t have space here to go through the letter in any detail, but for kicks, I’ll mention a few things.
First, John’s fundraising letter blames the County’s “unfunded liabilities” (he never really explains the term) on “public employee union leaders,” “the union’s demands,” what “the unions want,” “union pressures,” and “the union bosses.” Yes, this is all in the course of one letter.
One thing John says is: “The Board [of Supervisors] has granted retroactive retirement benefits to all of the County’s employees. Consequently, we are now facing a minimum of $2 BILLION in unfunded retirement liabilities, payable at a 7.75 percent interest rate.”
This seems to say that the “unfunded liabilities” are all due to our MOUs, doesn’t it? For the truth, check out the OCERS website at www.ocers.org/hottopics/recentnews.htm. There you will find an illuminating discussion, wherein the “real” causes of the so-called “unfunded liabilities” are shown. On the OCERS website, there is a link to a page with a chart.
I’m not a rocket scientist, but it’s pretty plain to me that the 2004 collective bargaining agreements were only responsible for $365 million of a stated $2.5 billion unfunded liability.
Uh, John, that’s only 15% of the unfunded liability.
These figures have changed somewhat since originally computed, but the ratios have remained essentially the same.
Oh, and by the way, some amount of “unfunded liability” in a retirement system is entirely normal. The Orange County Grand Jury has stated, “Analysts interviewed by the Grand Jury suggested a prudent liability level would be in the 80 to 90% range, meaning 10 to 20% unfunded.”
Incredibly, John makes it seem as though the County is picking up the tab for all this. As OCEA members who are largely footing the retirement bills yourselves, you already know this is not the case!
That being so, don’t you think John could at least HINT at the truth?
Having trouble sleeping at night, John?
Maybe it has to do with your highly questionable appointment of Chriss Street as Assistant Treasurer.
But if it has to do with the “unfunded liabilitiy,” you can rest easy. The website of OCERS (hey, you are on their Board) resolves your concerns:
“OCERS’ approach on actuarial matters avoids shifting costs to future generations. For example, OCERS does not rely on the unrealistic predictions of investment returns that led the Department of Labor to question many corporate pension plans. In addition, OCERS already has factored in the investment losses from 2000-2002, in contrast to some systems which have elected to postpone acknowledging those losses for many years.”
The Orange County Grand Jury actually states that the County is the “second major beneficiary” of the “2.7% at 55” pension enhancement.
People who made Moorlach their hero need to reassess things in light of the facts.
Moorlach’s unilateral appointment of Chriss Street as Assistant Treasurer was another case of John’s poor judgment. Not to mince words, it simply looked bad from the start. Most people concluded that given the one-day filing period and the timing of the appointment, John was trying to give his designated candidate a questionable advantage in the June election for Treasurer-Tax Collector. It turns out they were right. The Orange County Register (April 15, 2006) reported: “Moorlach says part of his motivation for hiring Street in January was to get him the title with the aim of helping his election.” Is that how democracy is supposed to work? The incumbent decides who his successor will be and then appoints him as his assistant just months before the election so his ballot designation can read Assistant Treasurer? Apparently in John Moorlach’s view, that is how democracy works—any way he wants it to.
But that’s not the end of John’s poor judgment. It’s not just the fact that he designated a successor, but who he designated that causes him problems. His designated successor has been strongly criticized by his successor trustee for his alleged financial self-dealing in a bankruptcy case, is the defendant in a pending civil fraud case in Alabama, has reportedly saddled taxpayers with $7 million in liability as a result of failed pension plan investments, and is now under investigation by the Orange County District Attorney. And this is John Moorlach’s hand-picked successor to manage the County’s $5.6 billion treasury and your pension funds?
This is John Moorlach exercising poor judgment followed by worse judgment.
John, thanks for doing that. It provides a great “ethics” example for me to share with my kids on what kind of behavior to avoid!
Is this all part of a picture of sleazy politics on Moorlach’s part?
I sort of think so. It’s one thing to take the ridiculous position that the unions are hurting the County’s budget. It’s another thing to try to defend that position with numbers and explanations that do not stand up to even the slightest intelligent scrutiny.
And Moorlach’s involvement with Chriss Street’s situation? Read the allegations and Street's admissions, then you tell me.
What is the biggest irony in all this?
Moorlach criticizes public employees, and yet he is a public employee himself, and he is one of the highest-compensated employees in the County. In this present year alone, he will have earned at least $143,000. I would quickly estimate that he will have been paid well over $1.5 million in taxpayer funds, just for his salary, during the 12 years he will have been treasurer.
He himself is included in the “2.7% at 55” retirement plan that he so hates. If John lives another 30 years, it looks like his total County pension will be in the vicinity of $1.1 MILLION AFTER ONLY 12 YEARS OF COUNTY EMPLOYMENT. (True fact: If all 17,600 current County employees got that pension, it would amount to $19 BILLION!) As I told our OCEA Stewards in a letter recently: “Plainly, the honorable thing to do would be for Moorlach to forfeit his retirement benefits back to the County. Somehow, I don’t think that will happen.”
Again, John, thanks for the lesson in hypocrisy; it’s another vivid example of what my kids have been taught to avoid.
John, I’ve been hearing a lot about your proposed tunnel through the Santa Ana Mountains, in the Cleveland National Forest.
So, John, here is a suggestion. Go ahead and build your wonderful $6-billion tunnel through our precious Cleveland National Forest. That tunnel, along with the extra 200,000 people you will be helping bring to Orange County every day, will be plenty enough to remember you by. We don’t need you as a member of the Board of Supervisors.
And when you drive through the tunnel, out to Riverside County (in one of your collectible automobiles, perhaps followed by your buddy Chriss Street, in his Ferrari), with your $1.1-million pension after only 12 years of work, and your County 401(a) plan, and your Social Security benefits from your years in the private sector, please do us all one small favor.
Don’t come back.
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
April 2006
We have been very active at OCEA lately. For myself, I usually take work home with me, and evenings and weekends are often spent, in large part, pursuing the interests of our members. Each day brings new challenges, and I’ll tell you frankly, at OCEA we have little if any time to mull over our successes and pat ourselves on the back.
In the last few months, we have been working hard preparing for our 2006 salary reopener in our County bargaining units. We have spent an enormous amount of time dealing with issues relating to OCERS and CalPERS, and examining the issue of whether it would benefit us to switch to CalPERS. We are also confronting the issues raised by the projected budget shortfall in the Planning Department. Moreover, we have also been committing substantial resources to the preservation of retiree medical benefits. Also, our Board of Directors has been reviewing the candidates in the upcoming June election, and has begun making endorsements. These are just a few of the main things we are closely involved with at the moment.
We have been extremely busy, and we have not really had time to rest or think much about the past.
So, what has been nagging at me?
Lord Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scout movement, wrote in his classic manual Scouting for Boys: In doing your duty towards man, be helpful and generous, and always be grateful for any kindness done to you, and be careful to show that you are grateful. Remember again that a present given to you is not yours until you have thanked the giver for it.
Well, it dawned on me that I did not adequately show my gratitude to our members for our election victory on November 8, when we defeated Proposition 75.
I know that a great many of you were responsible. Some of you went far out of your way to attend rallies. Some of you walked precincts. Some of you made scores of phone calls. Some of you did all of these things, and more. And a great many of you voted “No” on Proposition 75. Whatever your role was, you helped achieve what many had originally thought was impossible. And, perhaps more than anything else that happened last year, you contributed to OCEA’s strength, and to our ability to accomplish great things in the future.
So, now, I am saying “thank you,” from the bottom of my heart.
Many of our members are now in possession of a fine OCEA lapel pin celebrating our victory in the special election. If you do not have one, but would like to receive one, give OCEA a call at (714) 835-3355. While supplies last, we will send you one.
As I often say, our work is never done at OCEA. We always have more struggles ahead (and more elections!). Let’s stay united as we move forward!
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
March 2006
Remember the legend of El Dorado?
The term can refer to a mythical area, where, so to speak, streets are paved in gold, and where it rains diamonds, emeralds, and rubies. In a broader sense, it is often used to describe anything you badly want, but which always seems to be just beyond your reach.
It has been said that, “The concept of El Dorado suffered several transformations, and eventually accounts of the previous myth were also combined with those of the legendary city. The resulting El Dorado enticed European explorers for two centuries, and was never found, always seeming to be just beyond the limits of prior exploration.”
It’s the same way in the labor movement. If union organizer Joe Hill (1879-1915) could have looked into the future and seen us, he would have thought he had died and gone to heaven. What we have here in Orange County today probably would have seemed to be an unreachable goal.
After all, a lot of the areas that union organizers were concerned with in the past are no longer part of the labor movement’s active agenda (in our nation). Consider child labor, as one example. According to the Child Labor Public Education Project of the University of Iowa:
In the early decades of the twentieth century, the numbers of child laborers in the U.S. peaked. Child labor began to decline as the labor and reform movements grew and labor standards in general began improving, increasing the political power of working people and other social reformers to demand legislation regulating child labor. Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined, and common initiatives were conducted by organizations led by working women and middle class consumers, such as state Consumers’ Leagues and Working Women’s Societies.
Plainly, the organized labor movement was only one part of the solution to the child labor problem in the United States. Still, that solution is still part of our heritage, and child labor in the United States is no longer the scourge it once was.
This is not to say that there is no child labor issue in the United States any more. Nor does it address the problems of child labor in other countries. Child labor in much of the rest of the world continues to be a terrible problem, and there are no easy solutions. Sometimes, for example, the reduction in child labor channels the children into activities that are horrible to contemplate.
But at least we can look at classic images of child labor in the United States, and know that these are not our sons and daughters depicted.
The goals of the labor movement tend to change over time. There never will be a time in which we can say, “Well, we’re finished. Our work is done.”
You’ve all heard the expression, “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” Of course, it’s from Robert Browning’s poem “Andrea del Sarto” (1855). If you look at the actual poem, the meaning of the phrase isn’t immediately evident. The words flow from the mouth of a troubled 16th century artist (Andrea del Sarto) with marital problems.
But for most of us, it means that our intended goal should be beyond the results that we actually are capable of achieving. We should go for the gold medal, even if only the silver medal can actually be grasped. We should shoot for the stars, even if all we can actually attain is the planet Mars.
Lets’s remember all this, if we ever start becoming complacent about our goals.
Maybe we’ve reached Joe Hill’s El Dorado.
But we must continue to pursue our own.
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
February 2006
As most of you know, OCEA has a mission statement. Our mission is “to advance the welfare and security of Orange County local government employees and their families.”
We also have a vision: “To be a recognized leader among labor organizations, playing a vital role in the lives of local government employees and their families, and providing a valuable resource, relevant to their contemporary needs and interests.”
As I look at them, it is remarkable how “on target” we have been in working toward that mission and vision.
The mission and vision help us stay focused.
But I’ll tell you a secret.
Even if we had never set forth our mission and vision in writing, we would have been doing pretty much the same things. A vision statement by itself cannot transform an organization, and it has not done so in the case of OCEA.
If you were an outsider, the vision statement would help you understand what OCEA is about. But if you work at OCEA, as I have done for about 30 years now, these things are in your blood. You know pretty much instinctively what OCEA should do in a given circumstance, and it all becomes manifest in our advancement of the welfare and security of public employees in Orange County.
We need to stay focused on this mission, because, as our workforce grows, so does its need for OCEA.
Public-sector union membership has for years been the main shining star of the labor movement. As employees in the private sector throughout the country have become accustomed to the benefits obtained by organized labor, they have tended to lose sight of the need for unions.
We must not allow that to happen here in the public sector in Orange County.
As James Green (University of Massachusetts, Boston) has written, “[Y]oung people entering the labor market are more vulnerable than ever to abuse in the workplace. And yet they are alarmingly unaware of the decades of struggle previous generations made to extend human and civil rights to the workplace.”
How true!
It is for such reasons that membership in OCEA is crucial to our continued success. We should be striving for 100% membership among eligible employees.
That will make for the shortest route to the highest possible rate of improvement in our futures and our families’ futures.
And it will make certain that we stay on course with our mission and vision!
—Nick Berardino
OCEA General Manager
|