For reasons difficult to understand (at least, rationally), Republicans have long seemed to dislike public employees. Generally, it’s centered on workers making too much money, a concept Republicans don’t mind in the private community. But if a public employee dares make above a sustenance wage, bring out the commentators and pitchforks. If a public employee makes $100,000, that is a sign of the Apocalypse.
(What most Republicans tend never to ask, mind you, is why that public employee is making $100,000. So, they never hear that usually a) the employee is a head supervisor with decades of expertise, b) cutbacks in government funding forced layoffs, which require this expert to work extra overtime, and c) someone with that much experience in private business generally earns significantly more. But why ask about reality, when howling at the moon is easier?)
Now, I understand there’s a difference between a private worker earning $300,000 for a corporation, and a public employee getting $60,000 paid by taxpayers. The former is deservedly rewarded for helping make a profit. The other is serving the public good to make citizens’ lives better. Personally, I think the latter is noble-minded and something selfless to be admired and appreciated. But hey, that’s just me.
I understand, too, that the patron saint of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, said, “Government is the problem,” which set that unshakeable philosophy in impervious stone. And so, we tend to hear from many Republicans the all-encompassing ridicule, “Would you like to see Big Government run…?” – followed by the name of some private industry, always meant to suggest that the government can’t run anything properly, while private business is near-godlike.
Government red tape can indeed be one of Dante’s seven levels of hell. But given that 60% of all new restaurants fail in their very first year, I wouldn’t care to see the National Restaurant Association in charge of snow removal.
But let’s be fair. For the sake of argument, let’s accept the conservative Republican view that the government is terrible at running things, and if private business did the work, taxes would be lower. Okay? Great! So, then, let’s ask the exact same question as before, just – reversed.
“Would you like to see private industry run…?” And now fill in the blank with some government agency.
Because we’re just being fair. Right?
Would you like to see private business run the Armed Forces? Just make everything a private militia. It’s already in the Constitution. Let the branches compete, and only the strongest would survive. That’s Business 101. The military could even be outsourced overseas. If a private investor wanted to buy his own brigades, that’s the business spirit that made America great. And the president wouldn’t have to worry about spreading himself too thin as Commander-in-Chief, a job most haven’t really been qualified for anyway.
Would you like to see private business run the nation’s police departments? They certainly have experience already with Home Security companies. And if a private consortium wants to start up another police force, just imagine all the extra protection.
Would you like to see private business run the fire departments? Volunteer fire brigades worked swell in the 1850s, so they’re time-tested. And remember last year when a Tennessee fire department let a house outside its district burn down because the owner had forgotten to pay his $75 fee? Just think of the money collected by private companies. It wouldn’t be a piddling $75. Charge what the service demands – which is a lot.
Would you like to see private business run libraries? They are such a drain on government spending. If a businessman can’t turn a profit lending free books, he’ll just close the branch. There could be a huge business opportunity here – why even lend books? Sell them. You could close down all those brick-and-mortar libraries and do transactions online.
And would you like to see private business run the school system? We have great private schools right now, just make all schools private. If somebody can’t afford a good school – or afford a school at all – it’s like buying a new car. If you can’t afford one, walk. Maybe education isn’t for everyone anyway. Just smart, rich people.
And while we’re at it, if you really hate how government operates, wouldn’t you like to see private business run the Senate, House, judiciary, and President? We’re always hearing about wealthy Republican CEOs spending their personal fortunes to become governor so they “can run this state like a business.” Why not extend that to its logical conclusion? Just let private business run the entire country. You don’t need a Chief Executive, just a Chief Executive Officer. The best people would clamor for the job – with so much privatized, there’d be little to run, and a guaranteed $150 million bonus, like on Wall Street. And since the public always says they hate politicians, you wouldn’t need any. The CEO of United States Incorporated (a fully-owned subsidiary of Nabisco, a division of China, Ltd.) would simply appoint senior and junior executives to Congress. And hire ombudsmen instead of Federal judges.
Hey, just make everything in government private! Because if Republicans think government is so bad, it only makes sense to turn it all over to private business. Republicans have pretty much done that with their own party already. So, they’ve got a good handle on where to start.
Now, of course, this is just exaggeration. Obviously. Private business does much well, as does government. But accepting that is difficult for conservatives because it totally changes their issue. It’s no longer, “Government is the problem,” as the unmovable, blanket GOP starting point. Rather, it’s now becomes a fair question of debate: what does government do well (and do well with its public employees)? And where does private business fail?
In the end, government is not the problem. Nor is private business. The problem is being close-minded.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
And congrats on the Editor's Pick!
This is an assault on anyone who isn't paying bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions. The government is behaving like the mafia extorting money from those without political power to pay those with it.
And, of course, taxes will be lower if you privatize everything. But then everything else will be more expensive.
Do people ever really think about consequences before they spout off with this nonsense?
but now I know there was just a little close-mindedness, just a little misunderstanding. Just because they are sick animals and mindless, soulless sociopaths doesn't mean they aren't swell folks and BBQ fans!
And while you would like to think your $300K and $60K workers are equal, the fact is that most of the time, they're not. If the $60K worker could land the $300K job, he would, and for those that don't because of a more "noble" cause, then part of what's making it "noble" is taking less. So then turning around and paying them more doesn't make it noble in the least. Some of them also take the $60K job because it has better hours, less pressure (performing where you must bring profits is much higher in intensity, hence the rewards), easier standards, more job security, more control, i.e. something besides just the pay that also isn't just some "good feeling inside" which while acceptable, isn't noble.
Do you think restaurants fail because of anything the National Restaurant Association is doing or failing to do? Is the NRA somehow in charge of training and funding these businesses? Does it have any significant power to change that percentage of failing? The association is not running the industry. This is just such a poor analogy in every way, but even given this fact, I think most people would be willing to at least give the NRA a shot at taking care of snow removal given the stellar track record of the government system which really tells you something about just how inefficient our government is.
As for libraries, some things the government and people have decided to provide because they are "desired" even though they do no provide a profit. Again, desired, not necessary. Desired things are for when you have the money and resources to provide them. They are extra perks. So as much as I like libraries, I don't want to take on more debt to keep them, or at least as many of them.
Actually, the Postal Service is now semi-private, and is run worse than before, legendary for bad management. A business professor at a university I worked for used the Postal Service as his favorite example of bad management.
In the private sphere it varies widely. They have all tended to be managed poorly, though the corporation where I am currently employed used to be a pretty good place to work, fun even, with generous pay and benefits. Those days are over. The quality of the operation depended on the vision of the founder, and he sold the company to a mega-corporation a few years before he died. It wrecked the company, but things would be somewhat better in a good economy. The company operates under "at will employment," meaning it can fire any employee at any time for any reason. Most vulnerable, curiously, are managers, and especially the CEO. They are most notoriously fired for not firing people.
The best places to work were the non-profits. A lot of the reason for that is that they (and the employees) were focused more on their mission than on establishing "metrics" to measure performance and to have a method to harass and fire employees. The pay was abysmally low, there were no benefits whatsoever, and over time the work environment deteriorated, but I learned several trades, which qualified me to get more decent-paying jobs.
I have been a member of three different unions in four workplaces. They tended to be corrupt, but I made more money than in other jobs, and had rights to file grievances (which I did) and to not be fired without good reason. Someone would stand up for me if employers tried to force me out.
One is worth mentioning. I worked as a civilian plumber for family housing at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii. The local managers for the contractor were criminals, and with my help the company was banned from the base. Even though the company managers were paying-off the union, a grievance was filed on my behalf. The union actually won the grievance, and bragged about it in their newsletter.
Having worked in these three realms, I can't say that one is better than the other. They serve different functions, and tend to be the best forms of operations for what they do. The key factor is always the human one. Most managers in any type of employment are unskilled, self-serving, and try to set up their own little mafias to expand their power and to insulate themselves from scrutiny. I have had good managers in every type of employment, and the key element is an ease of being. In essence, this a spiritual quality.
Or, as the management professor loved to say, the pace of an organization is determined by the person at the top.
I sure am sick of all this scape-goating moon howling, though!
rated
You raise some excellent points here.
I suspect that the reasons the Republicons are so against public sector unions is that:
1) They are the only union jobs that can't be offshored.
2) These unions have traditionally supported democrats.
Excellent article.
He doesn't have a clue as to how public employees really think. And by the way, in the interest of government efficiency, a 30 year veteran of a state police force could be replaced by an illegal Pakistani, who'd be happy to do the same job at an annual salary for the equivalent of one week's pay for the American.
But somehow, I don't think it would be the same.
Apply it to health care. If medicare was a private business run for the profit of the sharesholders how many claims do you think would be paid, and how to you think the prices would be contained?
That's why the compromise Obama was forced into by the Republicans isn't going to work. The private carriers first responsibily as private companies is not to the insured but maintaining and increasing their own profits. But at least it is a step in the right direction. This is the point the lefty ideologues refuse to accept since they want it all now and will not accept incrementalism.
The question really is: who are these folks still so enmeshed in the 19th century that they do not recognize the benefits to themselves in a more equitably balanced society?
How any of that means the $60K worker is resentful is beyond me.
The wages, both public and private, should reflect the value of benefit, efficiency and quality at which they are performed that the market holds or would hold if it was private. The problem is that the vast majority of government jobs overpay in both pay and benefits for what is performed and operate in a structure that prevents removing the under-achievers.
People are not complaining about government agencies that are operating smoothly and effectively and responsively. I don't think any of these even exist, but if they do, these are certainly not the ones anyone is complaining about.
They just don't care.
So we shut the large institutions, we put the mentally ill out in the community, and we never funded the community group homes to replace the Cuckoo's Nest.
So all those mentally ill people are the homeless today--hearing voices, self-medicating, living under bridges. And populating the prison system, which is the only place, long-term, for many of the mentally ill.
Buffy
totally agree with the conclusion... after all, it's all about the extent to which something is pursued (on either side of the political spectrum).
While our current lack of care for the mentally ill is criminal, your comparison is hardly accurate. In the "good old days" most of the institutions for the mentally ill were beyond inhumane and the inmates kept there against their will. The only 'benefit' was that they were shut out of sight and people who wanted to believe the patients were happy and well cared for were free to indulge their illusions.
Anyone with a mentally ill family member who could afford it, put their relative in a private hospital.
Great countries are made by giving all residents opportunities to be their best. Libraries are an essential part of this. To have a literate and educated society, people need to become readers at an early age, long before they have the money to spend on books or paid library subscriptions. Libraries are an investment in our long-term future.
I care about the guys that have succeeded in that business not the ones who failed. They are the oles that look for a public job when the fail.
As a software engineer I have consulted to many state/gov agencies. Maine IRS, TX DHS, MI DOT, MI DHS, Ohio DOT, National Bank of Spain, New Zealand Police Dept. , U. S.Forestry, Louisiana BCBS , Ohio Department of Administrative Services, BATF and others.
I also consulted at many private entities.
Kmat, Food Lion, Central Dupage Hospital, Prudential, Hertz, NY Life, Galileo (airline reservation system used by the majors.), Clarian Health Partners, Flour Corp. , Caterpillar, Chase , JP Morgan, Intermountain Healthcare, Sutter Healthcare, CXI Trucking. And I did all this working for IBM.
I have seen the differences. New I am relating to public workers that are high paid as they are engineers as well. My beef is that are paid a bit less than me but never work as hard as me. Overtime out of the question. It is EXPECTED at IBM. So I worked lot longer hours to get a little more in pay. My job was not secure and I had to compete with co workers too. The gov. employees worked exactly by the clock. Their schedules were never as like mine.
They left work in mid sentences of a tech conversation when the clock ticked. Their work never went home with them.
I remember one conversation where the employee told me he knew I made more at IBM but it wasn't not worth it. I was the stupid one to work hard under pressure, He wanted regular hours, secure job,
and great benefits.
To make it simple, IBM is being paid 10K a week for my time as well as the sate paying it employees salary.
Why doesn't the gov have their own "me" there to do the job at my salary rather than pay IBM the large fee. It is because they don't want pressure to be me. To have to learn new technology on the spot. They have created a culture that says we cant expect that from ourselves and turn around and spend big tax dollars to hire IBM. Their people can't do it because of lack of motivation not only to do the work but to spend the effort and energy to keep up with new technology. They don't chose not to work at IBM . They cant work at IBM. they don't have the right stuff so they get a public job.
Libraries have been around for a very long time and the number of residents who become "their best" because of their existence is microscopic at best. We can live in some idealistic world where we think that thanks to the library system, people are finally pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and succeeding, but we all know this isn't the case. That said, I don't have anything against having libraries when we have the money to pay for them. If perhaps the return on investment was so high that it exceeded the costs we incur for not taking care of our current bills now, that would be one thing, but that is just not the case. Therefore, while investing is good; for these types of investments you have to first get yourself out of debt.
However, since we already have the books and buildings, there is no need to abandon all the libraries, but cutbacks are definitely needed. For those select few who really are using the library to become the absolute best that they can, they will still be able to get to a library and succeed as we all know they do. Oh, and there will still be colleges with libraries they can go to and bookstores which cost these individuals nothing.
Or I su